Re: [clue] REMINDER!!! WGLC: draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-requirements-05.txt

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christian,

Thanks for taking the time to review this. Comments/responses below [MB].

Mary.


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Christian Groves <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Here are my comments to the WGLC:
>
> 1) Reqmt-1D - With regards to reqmt-1d: The solution MUST support a means
> to identify
>                          the extent of individual video captures in
>                          three dimensions.
>
> Did we decide whether this was with respect to a "plane of interest" in 3
> dimensions? and/or a volume (i.e. incorporating a depth aspect) in 3
> dimensions? It probably would be good to clarify this in the requirements.
>
[MB] I don't know that this particular detail matters in the requirements
document.  [/MB]

>
> 2) General: At different places there are references to particular use
> cases. However this doesn't appear to used consistently. e.g. Regmt-9
> regarding interoperability between endpoints using different numbers of
> streams makes references to the heterogeneous use case. The heterogeneous
> use cases mentions different bit rates etc, however Reqmts-8, 7 etc don't
> mention the use case? It seems to me that if we include references to use
> cases that we should be consistent.
>
[MB] Not all requirements can be mapped directly to use cases - e.g., 16,
17 & 18. In the cases, where they can, we probably should. The references
are intended to informative. [/MB]

>
> 3) REQMT-12: Rather than say "..more than two <sites>" should we use
> "..more than two endpoints". We don't have a definition for "site".
>
[MB] We don't have an explicit definition but it can certainly be derived
from the context. We use "site" in several other places and just replacing
that with endpoint in those cases won't work - e.g,. in Section 4:  "If
Alice and Bob are at different sites, Alice needs to tell Bob about the
camera and sound equipment arrangement at her site so that Bob's receiver
can create an accurate rendering of her site."
That all said, I think we can replace the use of "site" in that requirement
as that's consistent with all the other requirements.
[/MB]

>
> 4) General: Do we need to have some text in the document that indicates
> that there may be other unspecified requirements that may be implemented?
> The framework has a number of attributes that aren't mentioned as part of
> the requirements e.g. scene description. Or alternatively do we capture
> this by adding a generic requirement regarding description of the content
> of captures/scenes? The requirements are very focussed on spatial/render
> aspects rather than information pertaining to the selection of captures.
>
[MB] I do not believe so.  These are the bare bones requirements - if we
don't have functionality to support these then we haven't done our job.
 However, the solution can certainly define additional functionality, that
doesn't necessarily map to a specific requirement.  The requirements should
not be specifying all the details of the attributes necessary to support
the use cases - that's the objective of the framework. Now, if you think
there is a general requirement that's missing, certainly you can propose
such. Realistically, requirements documents are starting points to seed the
solution work. Once the solution is started unless the WG thinks a
requirement can't be met, it's not necessarily productive to try to make
the requirements document absolutely complete.  Indeed, a number of WGs
actually never publish requirements documents, but rather just cache them
in an appendix for historical purposes. [/MB]

>
> 5) General: There seems to be a requirement in CLUE of the ability to
> indicate how captures are related to resources. e.g. the STS mechanism
> indicates which captures may be used together (which indicates which ones
> can't be used together) and the CSE that groups capture resources. This
> seems to be an important aspect of CLUE but there doesn't appear to be a
> requirement driving it.
>
[MB] As I mentioned previously, we don't need to have a requirement to
justify every aspect of the solution.   We don't want to get into having to
define capture scene entries, etc. in the requirements.   We don't need to
backwards engineer the requirements to match the solution.  [/MB]

>
> Regards, Christian
>
>
> On 16/09/2013 5:32 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
>> We started WGLC on the requirements two weeks ago.
>> It has run for two weeks, and there have been *NO* comments!!! :-(
>>
>> I can't advance this document without better indication of support from
>> the WG. So I'm extending this WGLC. I'll be away next weekend, so I will
>> let this extension run another two weeks, ending Sunday Sept 29.
>>
>> We NEED NEED NEED your comments on this. Please review it again, and
>> respond either positively or negatively, whether you think it is ready to
>> progress.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Paul
>>
>> On 9/2/13 3:50 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>
>>> With this message I'm announcing the start of WGLC for
>>> draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-**requirements-05
>>>
>>> This WGLC will last for roughly two weeks, ending at midnight GMT on
>>> Sunday September 15.
>>>
>>> It is important to have decisive results from a WGLC.
>>> (Silence doesn't do it.)
>>> So please, take a last careful look at these requirements and comment.
>>> If you like these as they are, please say so.
>>>
>>>      Thanks,
>>>      Paul (as co-chair)
>>>
>>> On 8/30/13 6:39 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>>> directories.
>>>>   This draft is a work item of the ControLling mUltiple streams for
>>>> tElepresence Working Group of the IETF.
>>>>
>>>>     Title           : Requirements for Telepresence Multi-Streams
>>>>     Author(s)       : Allyn Romanow
>>>>                            Stephen Botzko
>>>>                            Mary Barnes
>>>>     Filename        : draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-**
>>>> requirements-05.txt
>>>>     Pages           : 13
>>>>     Date            : 2013-08-30
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>     This memo discusses the requirements for a specification that
>>>> enables
>>>>     telepresence interoperability, by describing the relationship
>>>> between
>>>>     multiple RTP streams.  In addition, the problem statement and
>>>>     definitions are also covered herein.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/**doc/draft-ietf-clue-**
>>>> telepresence-requirements<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-requirements>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-**
>>>> requirements-05<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-requirements-05>
>>>>
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?**url2=draft-ietf-clue-**
>>>> telepresence-requirements-05<http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-requirements-05>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>>> submission
>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>>
>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-**drafts/<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> clue mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/clue<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> clue mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/clue<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>
>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> clue mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/clue<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>
>>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> clue mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/clue<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>
>