IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Aaron Falk <aafalk@akamai.com> Wed, 29 May 2019 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <aafalk@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 854AE120096 for <ggie@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.709
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.709 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 NNWHuAIYBRZK for <ggie@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:59:11 -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 573C612006E for <ggie@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:59:11 -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 x4TIraYU002258; Wed, 29 May 2019 19:59:09 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=jan2016.eng; bh=rR52rBfhuBfhXnZ+MqP0cWSevcQTp2blBman1+XXD2Q=; b=o5wGUZMeQn/c4ERoEJIE9GpoViT/e3MnM0+HVFLaqbmNZnwdqwJW7UAAplFkjodleIa3 7W2Kkm+czKVK/4lJzwslFeO8R4pnERlKP/fql0YCUKNV5UtIHCW4JWOuZfeNwtd0ie7M pY32qNG3wR5BPNWXps9BvQNHNCsfMqpgtZvvX10sIHJQf8UoRJGL5MObHkU7m1+aTlaR qIQMzr/hzWW0yJeSnUS4w55rlVOTYOrBXNzHTDOYn6K5U4fgEZDPCyX/Sb38JE5mtvaU OwwEE3yJCpaQiYGsfeLncovVx3Shsa0gA/tLnI6lIy4Id+yUVXY8o0WGtGzhuIhLCN6b xQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint1 (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [184.51.33.18] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ssdhmkjhb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 May 2019 19:59:09 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4TImKWY031083; Wed, 29 May 2019 14:59:09 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.25.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2sq11vcc5a-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 May 2019 14:59:08 -0400
Received: from [172.19.37.146] (172.19.37.146) by ustx2ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:56:09 -0700
From: Aaron Falk <aafalk@akamai.com>
To: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
CC: ggie@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:56:06 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635)
Message-ID: <D24DDB5C-64D5-446F-ABD1-E2867273BD5B@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <694B8D88-4811-4EC3-BC16-83B37E2EB2D2@thinkingcat.com>
References: <694B8D88-4811-4EC3-BC16-83B37E2EB2D2@thinkingcat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_364D8E3D-E838-4020-B34A-837166C88B0B_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.19.37.146]
X-ClientProxiedBy: USTX2EX-CAS5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.25.34) To ustx2ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.107)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-05-29_10:, , 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-1905290121
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-05-29_10:, , 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-1905290122
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ggie/ZNXkJj9RRxV6GEXDh9ln8PogJeE>
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: Wed, 29 May 2019 18:59:14 -0000

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?

> 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.  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

>
> 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.

--aaron

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email