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
- [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chicago Leslie Daigle
- Re: [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chic… Ben Campbell
- Re: [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chic… Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chic… Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chic… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chic… Linda Dunbar
- Re: [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chic… Livingood, Jason
- Re: [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chic… Ben Campbell
- Re: [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chic… Livingood, Jason
- Re: [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chic… Deacon, Alex
- Re: [GGIE] DRAFT bof proposal for IETF 98 in Chic… Brzozowski, John