Re: [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chicago

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 08 February 2017 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 666EB12A041 for <ggie@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:28:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hUzSq7Zop-kh for <ggie@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:28:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E975612A03D for <ggie@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:28:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.39] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v18MSobq059943 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:28:51 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.39]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 16:28:50 -0600
Message-ID: <516B53EA-574A-4A7C-B646-F5FB908F90E5@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F95E981-D341-4FAB-8C25-4A018A9761A7@thinkingcat.com>
References: <3F95E981-D341-4FAB-8C25-4A018A9761A7@thinkingcat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5344)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ggie/_CcGH3Gnoxxbsl3CDbNOvqIoEZY>
Cc: ggie@ietf.org, "Deen, Glenn" <glenn.deen@nbcuni.com>
Subject: Re: [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chicago
X-BeenThere: ggie@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss IETF-related items surfaced in the W3C GGIE Task Force <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, 08 Feb 2017 22:28:54 -0000

Hi, Leslie, thanks for sending this.

The ART ADs would like to see comments on the following:

- Do you plan to work on this if it becomes a working group? That is, 
would you expect to engage in discussion, review drafts, or even 
possibly edit drafts?

- Are you likely to implement and/or deploy the results?

- Does the scope seem right? That is, does this all belong in one WG 
and/or area, or are there aspects that might belong somewhere else?

Of course, discussion on other aspects is also welcome.

Thanks!

Ben.


On 8 Feb 2017, at 15:32, Leslie Daigle wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Please find below a proposal for a GGIE BoF (WG-forming) at IETF 98 in 
> Chicago.  We will be submitting the proposal by the deadline this 
> Friday, but would be happy to have suggestions to improve the proposal 
> before then.
>
> One of the things we’ve beed advised is that 
> GGIE-proponents-other-than-Glenn-and-Leslie are pretty invisible to 
> the IESG.  If there doesn’t seem to be other interest, there won’t 
> be much justification for a BoF.
>
> Now is the time, and here is the place, to voice your support for 
> furthering this discussion!
>
> Thanks,
> Leslie.
>
> —8<——8<——8<——
>
> Name: Glass to Glass Internet Ecosystem (GGIE)
>
> Description:
>
> Video is without rival the top use of Internet bandwidth, and its ever 
> growing demand for more bandwidth easily out paces the new capacity 
> being added both globally and regionally with no let up in sight.   
> Users are frustrated by quality, buffering, and stuttering problems. 
> Video providers and access networks are investing heavily to keep up 
> with demand.  Significant work has be done at the application layer 
> producing more efficient codecs and innovative adaptive bitrate 
> transports like MPEG-DASH.  These access investments and application 
> layer work have helped but they alone have not been enough.
>
> This BoF will introduce the Glass to Glass Internet Ecosystem (GGIE) 
> which focuses on network level innovations to compliment the efforts 
> at the application layer and access networks.  The proposed GGIE work 
> includes enabling adaptive bitrate transports like MPEG-DASH to use 
> IPv6 as their video segment addressing scheme which in turn permits 
> use of advanced IPv6 network features such as Segment Routing.  A GGIE 
> goal is to enabling video and network routing and management to work 
> more cooperatively and efficiently to transport video, and to do so in 
> a backward compatible ways to permit exiting devices and players to 
> take advantage of the improved network efficiencies.
>
>
>
>     Agenda
> 	Agenda bash, scribe, minute taker [10min]
>
> 	Context setting [15min]
> 		Highlights of the Internet Video Scaling Problem
> 		Specific aims of the GGIE work
> 		Relationship to other IETF activity
> 		Relationship to work in other fora
> 	
>         Overview of existing GGIE work — Network level proposals, 
> demo  [50min]
>              - IPv6 Prefix addressing of MPEG-DASH packaged video
>              - Content identifier to content address mapping using 
> MARS
> 	     - GGIE prototype demo
>
> 	Where from here? [45min]
> 		Known open questions
> 		Potential for IETF work — is there interest to pursue?
> 		If applicable: Discussion of draft charter for WG
> 		
>
>         Demo of GGIE prototype
>         Q&A & Discussion
>
>     Status: WG Forming
>     Responsible AD: Ben Campbell
>     BoF proponents: Glenn Deen / Leslie Daigle
>     BoF chairs: TBD
>     Number of people expected to attend: TBD
>     Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 2 hours
>     Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): DISPATCH WG and TBD
>     Links to the mailing list, draft charter if any, relevant 
> Internet-Drafts, etc.
>         Mailing List: ​https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ggie
>         Draft charter: see below
>         Relevant drafts:
>             draft-deen-daigle-ggie-02 :  Glass to Glass Internet 
> Ecosystem Introduction
> 	    draft-rose-deen-ggie-use-cases-00 : GGIE Internet Video Use 
> Cases		
> 	    draft-daigle-deen-ggie-uri-snaptr-00 :  Glass to Glass Internet 
> Ecosystem URI and S-NAPTR Use
> 	    draft-deen-naik-ggie-men-mpeg-dash-00 : Using Media Encoding 
> Networks to address MPEG-DASH video (This is expired, but we can 
> easily re-spin, or wait for WG input).
>
>
>
>
> Glass to Glass Internet Ecosystem (GGIE) -- Draft Charter
>
> Due to its size and sensitivity to network conditions, the transport 
> of video over the Internet has highlighted a significant scalability 
> problem for the Internet.  Addressing this scalability problem 
> requires better integration between application transport and 
> networking technologies and leveraging IPv6.  The GGIE working group 
> will define a set of fundamental building blocks bridging video 
> application use of the network and core network services of 
> addressing, routing, and naming. Through standardization, of such 
> fundamentals, a common base platform for new interoperable innovation 
> on video transport efficiency and scalability will be enabled.
>
> The scalability problem is driven by both professional and user 
> generated content, fortunately both types of content use the same 
> transport technologies which permits the working group’s output to 
> apply equally to them. Likewise, in addition to the use the network to 
> transport video for viewing, the network is extensively used in video 
> creation workflows of capture and editing, and distribution workflows 
> of encoding, packaging, and distribution to edge caches for playback.  
>  The working group will address both viewing and creation/distribution 
> workflows.
>
> To that end, the GGIE working group will define missing pieces of 
> Internet technology standards, as well as provide pointers to use of 
> existing standards.
>
> Specifically, the GGIE working group will:
>
> + complete an overview document outlining the GGIE problem statement 
> and general solution approach
> + develop a set of use cases representative of GGIE problem scope
> + develop a standardized URI for referring to specific media objects 
> within a domain
> + develop a standardized means for mapping IPv6 addresses to video 
> data
> + develop a media address resolution service protocol (MARS) to map 
> URIs and addresses for video
> + provide a mechanism for discovering media address resolution 
> services
> + document integration methods with lower level fundamental network 
> services (eg. routing)
> + develop media encoding network (MEN) definitions for video packaging 
> such as MPEG-DASH
> + illustrate how these technologies address the use cases already 
> developed for GGIE
>
> Out of scope are:  video technologies including codecs, digital rights 
> management, and DRM enforcement technologies.
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________
> GGIE mailing list
> GGIE@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ggie