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

["Duckworth, Mark" <[e-mail]>]

I always thought "site" and "endpoint" are synonymous.  I don't know what the difference would be.  I was not using "site" to refer only to multiscreen/multicamera rooms.

Mark

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 7:21 PM
To: Paul Kyzivat
Cc: CLUE
Subject: Re: [clue] REMINDER!!! WGLC: draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-requirements-05.txt

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Mary,


On 9/17/13 5:04 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Yes.  There are other requirements using the term site.  If you look at
the definition of "endpoint", there is the following statement:
Endpoints can be anything from
multiscreen/multicamera rooms to handheld devices.

So, I think we are using site to refer explicitly/only to
multiscreen/multicamera rooms.

Are we? I think even then we are really talking about endpoints, but with our design center biased towards multiscreen/multicamera rooms.

E.g., when we are doing "site switching", a CLUE compatible cell phone is still going to be treated as a site, together with the telepresence "rooms" in the session.
[MB] Actually, we don't define "site" in the CLUE framework either (and the word appears 89 times in the use cases).   So, maybe we *should* define site and leave most of the requirements alone.  I think the word conveys the concept well and I think we lose something if we change to endpoint in many cases, which we should do consistently if we propose to do so in the requirements document.    [/MB]

I'm not aware of *anything* that is specific to multiscreen/multicamera endpoints.

Maybe the easiest thing to do is to just
add a parenthetical comment in that sentence like the following:

       Endpoints can be anything from
       multiscreen/multicamera rooms (referred to as "sites") to handheld devices.

Wouldn't that confuse the definition of site switching?

        Thanks,
        Paul

Then, I do think it is appropriate to change the word "site" in REQMT-12
to "endpoint" as the intent of the requirement should also to endpoints
other than multiscreen/multicamera rooms.  I think the use of "site" in
the other requirements is okay.

Mary.


On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:

    Mary,

    IIUC, you are proposing to make a change from "site" to "endpoint"
    in Reqmnt-12, and otherwise leave things alone?

             Thanks,
             Paul


    On 9/17/13 2:06 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:

        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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
        <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
        <mailto:Christian.Groves@<mailto:Christian.Groves@>__nteczone.com<http://nteczone.com>

        <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
        <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
                     <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.>__org

        <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[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>



        <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>



        <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>



        <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<http://tools.ietf.org> <http://tools.ietf.org> <http://tools.ietf.org>.



                         Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous
        FTP at:
        ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-____drafts/
        <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-__drafts/>
                         <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-__drafts/
        <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/>>

                         ___________________________________________________
                         clue mailing list
        [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
        <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/____listinfo/clue
        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/clue>
                         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/clue
        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>>


                     ___________________________________________________
                     clue mailing list
        [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
        <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/____listinfo/clue
        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/clue>
                     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/clue
        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>>


                 ___________________________________________________
                 clue mailing list
        [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
        <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/____listinfo/clue
        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/clue>
                 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/clue
        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>>


             ___________________________________________________
             clue mailing list
        [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
        <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/____listinfo/clue
        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/clue>

             <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/clue
        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>>




        _________________________________________________
        clue mailing list
        [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/clue
        <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>


    _________________________________________________
    clue mailing list
    [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/clue
    <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>