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

[Mark Duckworth <[e-mail]>]

My emails to this list from my polycom address are not getting through, so
I'm trying from a different account.  Duplicate messages might show up
later.

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]>
> 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]>> 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:Christian.Groves@__nteczone.com****
>
>
>         <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:internet-drafts@ietf.__org****
>
>
>         <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>.***
> *
>
>
>
>
>                          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]>>
>         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>
>                      <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>
>                  <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>****
>
>
>              <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/clue
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>>
>
>
>
>
>         _________________________________________________
>         clue mailing list
>         [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]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/clue
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>