Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 in Montreal, looking for volunteers and suggestions
"Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com> Thu, 30 May 2019 18:40 UTC
Return-Path: <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
X-Original-To: ggie@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ggie@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02EE4120153 for <ggie@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 11:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.415, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=thinkingcat.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xjYHm_Ot3h9p for <ggie@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 11:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cichlid.maple.relay.mailchannels.net (cichlid.maple.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.214.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E8301200FD for <ggie@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 11:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A709E8C1135; Thu, 30 May 2019 18:40:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-85-75.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.85.75]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E3A868C20B9; Thu, 30 May 2019 18:40:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.17.2); Thu, 30 May 2019 18:40:12 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Blushing-Cure: 0200f7ea7c913557_1559241612474_2310553056
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1559241612474:2483373201
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1559241612473
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438737FFD6; Thu, 30 May 2019 11:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=thinkingcat.com; h=from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=thinkingcat.com; bh=i QRP0NsAez8OUFp8egbbPymUtJg=; b=bU30ldm/LwTgXm2ufXcOjdhvNuiz0qqnu 1uoEMzrmKw1VMLN29XuIOQjnyQ6nQE+4tj2DF7Io+JkOrmodzzFlIU8iNwR6PgU5 PQkwSKdess/Nm55MkY6f17XPJGo9vLLrSnsjJ/X75WBJj9AafzFgkHluaEoZD8dh OsmatEwC54=
Received: from [192.168.161.251] (unknown [69.241.19.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ldaigle@thinkingcat.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 787937FFD5; Thu, 30 May 2019 11:40:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a77
From: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
To: Aaron Falk <aafalk@akamai.com>
Cc: ggie@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 14:39:44 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635)
Message-ID: <6F93D9C6-B35D-4C35-94BC-4B1548903362@thinkingcat.com>
In-Reply-To: <D24DDB5C-64D5-446F-ABD1-E2867273BD5B@akamai.com>
References: <694B8D88-4811-4EC3-BC16-83B37E2EB2D2@thinkingcat.com> <D24DDB5C-64D5-446F-ABD1-E2867273BD5B@akamai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_256F41B1-A9EC-4692-AFC0-6691449CE84B_="
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddruddvledguddvlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvffufffokfgjfhggtgfgsegrkehmreertdejnecuhfhrohhmpedfnfgvshhlihgvucffrghighhlvgdfuceolhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepieelrddvgedurdduledruddvnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedrudeiuddrvdehudgnpdhinhgvthepieelrddvgedurdduledruddvpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpedfnfgvshhlihgvucffrghighhlvgdfuceolhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtoheplhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ggie/15jvaLrcMg_a_ANH2CJ15-tnHDE>
Subject: Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 in Montreal, looking for volunteers and suggestions
X-BeenThere: ggie@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss IETF-related items for Glass to Glass Internet Ecosystem of Video Content <ggie.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ggie>, <mailto:ggie-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ggie/>
List-Post: <mailto:ggie@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ggie-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ggie>, <mailto:ggie-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 18:40:17 -0000
Hi Aaron, Thanks for the thoughts — a few follow ups, inline: On 29 May 2019, at 14:56, Aaron Falk wrote: > Hi Leslie- > > IANAVG (I am not a video guy), but the GGIE discussions have been > interesting to me. IMO the BoF charter is missing some motivation > that, in the interest of generating argument, I propose below. I hope > the BoF is approved. > > ---aaron > > On 29 May 2019, at 14:01, Leslie Daigle wrote: > >> Full description of BoF: >> >> Internet- and Internet-protocol-delivered video/media is popular, >> leading to significant technology development across industries not >> traditionally thought of as Internet technology developers or >> operators, as well as considerable quantities of traffic on local and >> transit networks. > > Is this a problem? Do I need to switch the order of that sentence and the one below? Because I think the problem is expressed in the second sentence. > >> Continued development of Internet-using technologies should be >> properly coordinated in order to ensure that the existing >> technologies are well-utilized, and new ones are developed in >> sympathy with the Internet’s core protocols and design. > > I’m not sure these are the most motivating goals. I think it’s kind of the key issue at hand: you need to have a connection, before you can improve it. Right now, IMO, we don’t even have a connection. > Off the top of my head, here are a few candidates. I’m sure YMMV: > > * Maximize interoperability > * Establish metrics for quality > * Improve quality for any network conditions > * Make the best use of available infrastructure > * Identify challenges in operations: isolating performance, > reachability, and interoperation issues I think these would be fine things to think about, as a second turn of the crank. First turn: acknowledging there is a world of video technology development and deployment out there that is currently being undertaken using, but completely independent of, the IETF’s work. I’m typing this as I sit in one such video meeting, where I’ve made a few impassioned interventions to urge people to come play at the IETF, and I can’t tell them where to engage. > >> >> The purpose of this BoF is to highlight the many existing video >> activities that are leveraging IETF protocol work, identify gaps in >> IETF work and/or areas of incompatibility with video technology >> development efforts being carried out elsewhere, and identify a core >> group of IETF participants working on video activities across the >> IETF’s technology areas. > > Given ‘operations’ is in the name, it seems like there should be a > bit more exploration of the topic in the description. You can, or anyone else is welcome to, send text :-> Leslie. > > --aaron > _______________________________________________ > GGIE mailing list > GGIE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ggie -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Daigle Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises ldaigle@thinkingcat.com -------------------------------------------------------------------
- [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 in Mo… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 i… Aaron Falk
- Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 i… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 i… Holland, Jake
- Re: [GGIE] [E] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 1… sanjay.mishra
- Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 i… LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
- Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 i… Holland, Jake
- Re: [GGIE] [EXTERNAL] Re: Proposing an actual BoF… Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 i… Ali C. Begen
- Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 i… Holland, Jake
- Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 i… Ali C. Begen