Re: [dispatch] Virtual IETF107 - SRT draft is available

["김준웅님(JOONWOONG.KIM)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks so much for sharing your views. The intention (at least for me) is to find the right venue and right track for IETF work. As Glenn suggested, I believe MOPS is the appropriate place for discussion of media related protocols and real world operations (to contribute by requirements and use cases). However, MOPS does not work on a protocol itself in my understanding (considering the charter of WG; correct me if I'm wrong). We are certainly open to all the possibilities, but we would like to understand if the current SRT protocol could be standardized or documented within IETF. If it would be WG standard, personally I think change control could be transferred to IETF (of course, it needs to be aligned with developments of open source). For all those different opportunities, I thought the discussion in the dispatch style working group might be helpful in addition to potential discussion at MOPS, but we do not have hands-on experience of IETF process..

cheers
joonwoong

-----Original Message-----
From: dispatch <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Martin Thomson
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 5:26 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Virtual IETF107 - SRT draft is available

As this is an entirely new transport protocol, I don't see this as being within the MOPS charter.  This would be something at the scale of a working group, likely in the transport area, if the IETF took it on.  But several questions come from this:

* is the intent here to transfer change control to the IETF?

* why would anyone choose to do this as opposed to something like QUIC?  QUIC provides certain security properties, whereas I have very little confidence in the claimed security properties of this protocol.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020, at 03:23, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> I think it still best fits in MOPS, at least initially.  SRT is a 
> popular protocol in use operationally amongst media companies and 
> doing an ingest initially in via MOPS will help get it the visibility and
> discussion from the media operations viewpoint.    
> 
>  While MOPS won't meet until the virtual meetup being planned for 
> April, all that really means is that there won't be an opportunity to 
> present on the draft to a WG until then - but the interims are only a
> couple weeks out from now, so it's not a massive delay.   
> 
> Between now and the interim MOPS meeting the draft can still be 
> discussed and reviewed on the MOPS list.
> 
> My worry is that skipping having it run through MOPS to gain the input 
> there would be skipping an important set of eyes that can helpfully 
> contribute to commenting on the draft.
> 
> -glenn
> 
> 
> On 3/18/20, 9:09 AM, "dispatch on behalf of Ben Campbell" 
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     Hi All,
>     
>     The chairs would like to see comments about what an appropriate 
> discussion venue for this draft would be. It seems like it sits on the 
> border between TSV and ART.
>     
>     Thanks!
>     
>     Ben.
>     
>     > On Mar 18, 2020, at 1:37 AM, 김준웅님(JOONWOONG.KIM) 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > 
>     > Hi all
>     > 
>     > I would like to draw you attention to SRT draft which is added 
> in the last minute to the agenda of DISPATCH session, coming week (if 
> time is allowed after existing agenda items are handled):
>     > 
>     > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sharabayko-mops-srt/
>     > 
>     > SRT (Secure Reliable Transport) protocol is a user level 
> protocol optimized for low-latency live video contribution based on 
> UDT and UDP, over different network conditions. While it has been 
> rather successfully deployed by some industries, we would like to make 
> it an Internet standard and further collaborate in IETF communities 
> for enhancements, which would be beneficial to Internet community and 
> Industries.
>     > 
>     > The draft was originally submitted for MOPS WG of IETF 107 for 
> discussions, but now there will not be any MOPS meeting until late 
> April. Therefore we would like to discuss this draft in DISPATCH, 
> which might be more appropriate venue to find out where and how a new 
> protocol draft can be handled. I appreciate DISPATCH leaderships and 
> members, for kind consideration.
>     > 
>     > If you need more clarification about SRT protocol or our 
> intention, please let me know. Any comments or discussions before the 
> meeting would be helpful as well. In the meantime, you can find more 
> information about SRT here (white papers, simple video clips, and open 
> source code):
>     > https://www.srtalliance.org/
>     > http://www3.haivision.com/srt-open-source-wp
>     > https://github.com/Haivision/srt
>     > 
>     > Thanks so much for reading and your help in advance.
>     > 
>     > thanks
>     > Joonwoong
>     > ==
>     > Joonwoong Kim | Global Standardization | SK Telecom 
> mailto:[e-mail]
>     > 
>     > 
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > dispatch mailing list
>     > [e-mail]
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>     
>     
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>

_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch