Re: [GGIE] MOPS - Media Ops BoF request

[Matthew Stock <[e-mail]>]

Glenn,

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.

Matt


On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:16 AM Holland, Jake <[e-mail]> 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)" <[e-mail]>
> Date: 2019-06-03 at 09:50
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <[e-mail]>
> 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
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S4soR8QVjbCa1k1CXS8bCXox_h8-zK6kEsS8_IU4yXI/
>
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ggie
>