Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 in Montreal, looking for volunteers and suggestions

"Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com> Sun, 07 July 2019 23:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jholland@akamai.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 BD34D120047 for <ggie@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 16:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 DvHWytlzk22a for <ggie@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 16:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 86B54120045 for <ggie@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 16:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122331.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x67NWBKI020292; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 00:36:09 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=0EBAqSSS60y3WGEVyfFRzvOpeHaaWF3ikJ+cZQWdgUQ=; b=W2gUpX4ezjAOred4wVam8ePCStWKVBpWP13WYxxAPmW2u9zdlyOkSyh4XWCq4YfbwqK4 iFuoGn+PzetRlBY8E3U/BGwUlMi36VWkJA+1a0TeOB4pT1rlmQ3rFAKqx2RV6Fm7OInF /eNptFrXeRhxyl+2DZ+KmHDVuoVEA3E4P7mAccRXj4+7zhgCs2gPN+NUGZ6EqDfD5J/X 1MtIEAqG2NOjzgkAlOimwhMdydlo6WGqkzsB/0dA68S1s2cT6Z797xIm8CpZizzFqsP0 BFllTQFaD5DhjtEFXENDx+IIfUsCKvORsognut1bMk77XokW0xnmImadLGz680oLZf2S GQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tjggqetpg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 08 Jul 2019 00:36:09 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x67NWUBf023473; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 19:36:08 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.25.30]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2tjpyvrj8g-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 07 Jul 2019 19:36:08 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.104) by ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 18:36:07 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.134]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.6.134]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.004; Sun, 7 Jul 2019 18:36:07 -0500
From: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>
To: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, "ggie@ietf.org" <ggie@ietf.org>
CC: "mops@ietf.org" <mops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 in Montreal, looking for volunteers and suggestions
Thread-Index: AQHVFkicA7bUKXkMKkaCvaz3iBtSEqaLpv4AgDREZQA=
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 23:36:05 +0000
Message-ID: <95B20320-3699-427E-A43E-77698D83811E@akamai.com>
References: <694B8D88-4811-4EC3-BC16-83B37E2EB2D2@thinkingcat.com> <08EFC2C4-F8ED-40BD-95FB-2C515B48F38F@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <08EFC2C4-F8ED-40BD-95FB-2C515B48F38F@akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1a.0.190609
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.112.142]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_95B203203699427EA43E77698D83811Eakamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-07-07_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907070330
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-07-07_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907070330
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ggie/BRvUzRhwUIF0zOx3tpt6QXj3-6A>
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: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 23:36:16 -0000

Hi mops folks,

My contribution morphed slightly, but I’ve submitted a draft I hope will be useful:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jholland-mops-taxonomy-00

Chairs: can I have about 15 minutes to present?

I’ve tried to make this draft a start at a taxonomy of networking issues in media operations.  It includes the video scaling issue, but also a few other issues that occurred to me, as things I’ve wished I could point people to a document about in the past.

I think there’s probably a lot more that could be added and refined, but if a document like this seems like a useful direction, I’d be willing to flesh it out and try to make it into a more complete overview of known considerations worth thinking about when trying to work out networked video solutions in practice.

Please read and give feedback if you’ve got any, there’s still a good 24.5 hours until the deadline, so plenty of time to update...

- Jake

(PS: do we have a mops mailing list yet?)

From: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>;
Date: 2019-06-04 at 10:26
To: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>;, "ggie@ietf.org"; <ggie@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 in Montreal, looking for volunteers and suggestions

Hi guys,

Sorry for the delayed response.

I’ve been attending these and I wanted to take a moment to express support for creating a mops working group.  I’ve found the meeting so far valuable, and I hope they’ll be more valuable going forward, if the group becomes a normal working group.

I presented at a couple of these meetings, most recently a presentation about the scale of media delivery titled “Multicast Video: Motivating Observations”:
https://yana.techark.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ietf104-vig-multicast-video.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__yana.techark.org_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2019_04_ietf104-2Dvig-2Dmulticast-2Dvideo.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bqnFROivDo_4iF8Z3R4DyNWKbbMeXr0LOgLnElT1Ook&m=LlaiDQnX01BtPrtiQBbe5oOyjhHqsmaiQPXc1S27-zE&s=RIYHQUHhV4-J27VB5hivnpLba9mGsulLu9BZMQ8QIS8&e=>

I’m working on reframing some of the observations presented there into an I-D as a problem statement of the scalability issues in today’s video delivery landscape.

I hadn’t thought of it as having great archival value since the numbers I’ve got in that first presentation are just sort of a snapshot, but I think there’s a useful point in there that’s a little more timeless or that can capture an important trend, and I’m thinking about how to express it, and tentatively aiming to submit something for the first proposed slot in the agenda (about scope of video).  (Co-authors would be most welcome, if you’ve got some insights or good numbers on this topic :) )

Another thing I’d love to get out of this group at some point is a roadmap document about the various video-related and video-delivery-related standards, ideally with some pointers about implementation status, and maybe a bit of history and the motivating factors for the tradeoffs made in the different designs.  I get confused every time I try to figure that stuff out, and I’m hoping someone who knows it better will take the time to write it up and give a good overview as it relates to media delivery.  (Additionally, I’ve found the presentations so far very helpful for staying informed about the networking aspects of the various approaches people are trying, as they struggle to handle the deluge of video data.)

I wish the presentations so far had been recorded and archived, as I think there has been some good stuff covered.  On a couple of occasions I’ve gone and looked back at the presentations that were so graciously and helpfully posted at yana.techark.org, and asked the authors or presenters some follow-up questions later, but I sometimes wished I could review the presentations, as I’ve been able to do with the regular working group meetings on youtube.

It’s my opinion that the networking-related issues driven by media delivery (particularly the scaling issues and the real-time requirements, where those are a factor) are really worthwhile to examine in detail, and to consider various proposed solutions in a context like IETF, with access to and comments from networking experts and network operators.

Sorry I’ve been unresponsive on this, and I know there’s deadlines coming up.  It’s not quite my top priority and I’ve had several other fairly urgent things going, but I consider this group to be filling an important role at the IETF, at least for my purposes there, and I’d like to see it normalized.

I also have some comments on the draft charter that was recently sent out, I’ll send those in a follow-up.

Best regards,
Jake

From: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>;
Date: 2019-05-29 at 11:01
To: "ggie@ietf.org"; <ggie@ietf.org>;
Subject: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 in Montreal, looking for volunteers and suggestions


Hi,

We’ve been working with Éric to see about having a “Media OPS” bof in Montreal, and I’ve copied a draft agenda/proposal framework, below. Comments welcome.

As the BoF request deadline is approaching, I’d like to get some firm commits on concrete contributions (I-Ds are ideal; presentations are possible). If you have a contribution you’d like to share in the agenda, please let me know; if you’ve already heard from me with a request, I’ll be following up :^) .

Media OPerationS (MOPS) BoF
Area: OPS
Chairs: Leslie Daigle (ldaigle@thinkingcat.com<mailto:ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>), Glenn Deen (glenn.deen@nbcuni.com<mailto:glenn.deen@nbcuni.com>)

Agenda

0/ Agenda bash

1/ Scope of video on the Internet
<contributions solicited>

2/ Video using IETF technologies
<contributions solicited; I was thinking that LURK and OpenCache might fit well here, again>

3/ Open questions for IETF and video

AOB

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. 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.

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.

Conflicts to avoid: ???

Expected attendance: 40

Length of session: 90min

Leslie.

--

________________________________

Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises

ldaigle@thinkingcat.com<mailto:ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>