Re: [GGIE] [EXTERNAL] Re: 20181107-VIG-IETF103-Bangkok.pdf

It seems to me that, like many of the research groups, we’re grappling with present-day issues on the internet that don’t have a known good solution, with a lot of contributions on a wide array of relevant topics that don’t have another landing place in the IETF (or the IRTF) where they’re clearly in-scope.

Although various actors are trying a lot of things live and planning to roll out a lot of things in the near term (standardized or not), there’s a lot of unknown space here, and very little confidence (speaking only for myself) that the solutions rolled out in the near term are going to be the optimal or most widely adopted long-term solutions, as video traffic on the internet continue to scale. Even more so if you think about including the internet needs for emerging VR-based media.

I’d argue that in this respect, we’re in a very similar position that a bunch of the other research groups are in, specifically including maprg, iccrg, t2trg, nmrg, cfrg, and nwcrg.

I think we saw a taste of the interest level at the first ggie bar-bof (the one that got too big to do in a bar), especially with the hum about whether problems in this space are worth continuing to discuss at the IETF. I bet if we did something like a “Internet Media at Scale Research Group” with a charter, we’d see a significant level of buy-in.

I have no strong opinion on the timing of making an attempt, but it seems worthwhile to me to try to put a charter together that people on this list more or less agree on and try to get it on the agenda in the context of a proposed research group.

Just my 2c. :)

-Jake

From: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <Glenn.Deen@nbcuni.com>
Date: 2018-11-15 at 01:28
To: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>
Cc: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, "ggie@ietf.org" <ggie@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GGIE] 20181107-VIG-IETF103-Bangkok.pdf

If we did want to explore that route would would likely need to wait until the new IIRTF chair is chosen and seated at IETF104.

One, Among a few, of my concerns with being in the IRTF is that much of what we are talking about is being done in order to do initial deployment operationally in the near term (6-18mos) and isn’t research with a lot of academics

I’m sure we could attract academics but they maybe in a space that’s research - more abstract and less deplorable.

Glenn

On Nov 15, 2018, at 7:40 AM, Holland, Jake <jholland@akamai.com<mailto:jholland@akamai.com>> wrote:
Hi,

Thanks for writing this up, Leslie.

I think there was also a suggestion to turn this video interest meeting forum into an IRTF research group, with a few people concurring that it seemed like a good idea.

Is there any interest from people on this list in following up on that suggestion?  I think it’s a good idea, and a good fit with the nature of the presentations that we’ve seen, and the kinds of problems we’ve been grappling with.

Best,
Jake

From: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com<mailto:ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>>
Date: 2018-11-14 at 13:52
To: "ggie@ietf.org<mailto:ggie@ietf.org>" <ggie@ietf.org<mailto:ggie@ietf.org>>
Subject: [GGIE] 20181107-VIG-IETF103-Bangkok.pdf

Hi,

Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion last week in Bangkok! Please find attached some notes from our session at IETF 103.

Leslie.

--

________________________________

Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises

ldaigle@thinkingcat.com<mailto:ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
_______________________________________________
GGIE mailing list
GGIE@ietf.org<mailto:GGIE@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ggie<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ggie&d=DwMFAg&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bqnFROivDo_4iF8Z3R4DyNWKbbMeXr0LOgLnElT1Ook&m=ZCm3lBIfVpi6Z2cEW6eCfwX3avpGPW-AysZNhtIYB_w&s=xrOgH6Y5XRCFFiQspt5USWUDKM8bck1RjQpjBNUooMs&e=>