Re: [GGIE] MOPS - Media Ops BoF request

Matthew Stock <> Wed, 05 June 2019 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCF512021F for <>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 12:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b2M24us8u7-t for <>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 12:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37DAE1201D7 for <>; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 12:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 136so8433275lfa.8 for <>; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 12:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JC0iHyZf126/+O8gBW18A/AWOxUhjhLCGpxO5q2tYYE=; b=zNk34DH8mGMMELF7sSpuo4y89hwBj0cWb8n9oYLCH8FLItNaocpEOBup/vwYsCluPB 3+GQEtBVYPt7lR7RIsuyUAR6+IulNeHbRsN0V3xetpx9gerhr5XNHE7ND8gB6OWtn9g5 xxxmTPNOA4mZ3h9fwH/HQ+e7bVX8k3DWYz7rU3mp2wPSaFko2lyFgiRQD59LL394LS20 Cwt6yHz7hmQT5cWNadgkB99ZPmvJonGMbORaZFdOjARB0+Ebsxsz1VCSetCXxW/soQBT zsIVlGGyQn2nS4bc8CsqKV5cTddEi401j1N4nH81vdK4zDIUf2yTdqCHGYSCtBFPyBOQ t0oA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JC0iHyZf126/+O8gBW18A/AWOxUhjhLCGpxO5q2tYYE=; b=EWBFwFFFlVMGWhWu5XToi7VjRyJriD/UerlN4OzvtWIf71zzzPt7fJC1Jh7fzrO7rv Q+26GpEIFneno6ql6dD6OxzWSpPZJRK7kHVCgisPG4Q7Y4ChxkrvA4Mcx7hBiCAyqn3C FKfarSc7Ia9k9ARwDpfjAluX8IDokmxD/MNhZegGEUgqCuRmHu/W7MIZADPQr5MWzRIb PhloqLS9PSOeAcVIkGVWGZSaNGn80atAqMx6Cyz6ZWECLBNBmgIXgqjeXP0Rv+qgbFjZ 9G6myVY2xQAeNgUiuw35SY+5lbU1fAmdOwF9DuiETUYd6vOAGlZWJJ/pKNzCOsFYgZuA Zbew==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUwGeThyQ3gyHOYkPAbkLh42NMmJECjtmhsKhTSn2Ul/qIUGZ0r 3LFzj7Sk9R6isQbxb8YVAAdVPsC9MkMiVDeyB5yMOQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxnoKnm/pN2XT3kHrZNYZmUaiRiwPixbPlZi54B+cFdPgj8usLAnQ2j/PWFLBOQdBnPMAzFnnqPMKQ35uYpJ28=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:51ab:: with SMTP id f11mr20230638lfk.55.1559763458983; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 12:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Matthew Stock <>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 15:37:37 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e82320058a98bad4"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [GGIE] MOPS - Media Ops BoF request
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss IETF-related items for Glass to Glass Internet Ecosystem of Video Content <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 19:37:44 -0000


At the moment, I don't think I have any new comments to add beyond what has
already been said.  Tightening up the purpose/goals would be good, and I
like the interoperability and efficient use of infrastructure as key
themes.  I'd be interested in participating in the BoF.


On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:16 AM Holland, Jake <>; wrote:

> Hi Glenn,
> Thanks for posting this.  The charter mostly looks good to me, I have a
> few comments inline with [JH] (text pasted from the google docs link).
> Cheers,
> Jake
> Media OPS WG
> 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.
> MOPS will solicit input on operational issues and practices, existing
> and proposed technologies related to the deployment, engineering, and
> operation of media streaming and manipulation protocols and procedures
> in the global Internet, inter-domain and single domain.  In this case,
> media is considered to include the transport of video, audio, objects
> and any combination thereof, possibly non-sequentially.  The scope is
> media and media protocols’ interactions with the network, but not the
> technologies of control protocols or media formats.
> The goals of mops are:
> 1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
>    operational issues with media delivery in and across networks, and
>    determine solutions or workarounds to those issues.
> 2. Solicit discussion and documentation of the issues and opportunities
>    media acquisition and delivery and of the resulting innovations.
> [JH] I'm confused on this one.  I think at very least it's missing "in"
>      between "opportunities" and "media".  But there might be a better
>      way to phrase this overall, I'll propose one if I think of a
>      suggestion.
> [JH] I think "media acquisition" needs a definition.  Web search of
>      this term seems to refer to obtaining intellectual property
>      rights for particular properties; I'm not quite sure what the
>      intent is here, but I suspect not that.
> 3. Operational solutions for identified issues should be developed in
>    mops and documented in informational or BCP drafts.
> 4. Document operational requirements for media acquisition and delivery
> 5. Develop mechanisms and procedures for sharing operational information
>    to aid in operation of media technologies in the global Internet
> 6. Develop tools, extend protocols and provide operational and
>    implementation advice that assists in media technology administration,
>    diagnostics, troubleshooting and deployment between/within native and
>    non-native environments.
> These documents should document media operational experience, including
> global Internet, inter-domain and within-domain operations.
> [JH] Maybe "should address" or "should cover", instead of "these documents
>      should document"?
> Media operational and deployment issues with specific protocols or
> technologies (such as Applications, Transport Protocols, Routing
> Protocols, DNS or Sub-IP Protocols) are the primary responsibility of
> the groups or areas responsible for those protocols or technologies.
> However, the mops Working Group may provide input to those areas/groups,
> as needed, and cooperate with those areas/groups in reviewing solutions
> to mops operational and deployment problems.
> [JH] Should we use something strong than "may" here?  "should"?  "is
>      expected to"?
> Future work items within this scope will be adopted by the Working Group
> only if there is a substantial expression of interest from the community
> and if the work clearly does not fit elsewhere in the IETF.
> There must be a continuous expression of interest for the Working Group
> to work on a particular work item. If there is no longer sufficient
> interest in the Working Group in a work item, the item may be removed
> from the list of Working Group items.
> [JH] I thought there's a similar expectation already for WGs in general,
>      is there a sense which this WG needs special handling?
> [JH] Should there be a provision for criteria that would justify closing
>      the WG?  (If sufficient consideration of media delivery concerns
>      becomes routine in protocol specs, or if interest or attendance
>      drops below some threshold?)  Not sure what's normal for ops
>      groups, but some of the RFC 2418 text seems to suggest the normal
>      WG goal is about defining protocols, and like other ops groups,
>      this is a little different.
> From: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <>;
> Date: 2019-06-03 at 09:50
> To: ""; <>;
> Cc: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <>;
> Subject: [GGIE] MOPS - Media Ops BoF request
> Hi everyone,
> IETF105 BoF requests are due this Friday, so now would be good time to
> send your comments on the MOPS BoF draft
> The current draft is an amalgam of the discussions we had at IETF104 and
> feedback from a few ADs, but the more the better so please don’t be shy.
> This is a chance to bring forward, officially the topic of creating an
> group with video expertise at the IETF that can help video problems across
> the great diversity of technical areas that are the IETF.  So I encourage
> you to please take a couple of minutes when you get this email, look at the
> draft and comment back the list your thoughts.
> Even – “it looks good to me”  – is helpful to hear.
> regards
> Glenn
> _______________________________________________
> GGIE mailing list