Re: [media-types] [art] [dispatch] Status of Haptics I-D in DISPATCH?

[Yeshwant Muthusamy <[e-mail]>]

John,



Regarding your comment:



>> One reason is that I think it would be really unfortunate to establish a precedent that the way to get a top-level media type is to invoke work going on at

>>what I understand to be essentially the WG level in another SDO and then plead urgency.

>>I would feel somewhat differently about an established, recognized, deployed international standard, but, as I understand "active work in ..

>>MPEG Systems File Format sub-group", this is fairly far from that.



I would just reiterate/summarize what I wrote in my response to Ned's comment that you might have missed: the haptics proposal in MPEG is no longer at the "WG level" in the MPEG Systems File Format sub-group. It just progressed to FDIS ballot at MPEG134, which should complete by July 2021, at which point progression to IS (International Standard) is just a matter of procedure. More to the point, it has passed two rounds (CDAM and DAMD) of international balloting, with over 20 ISO National Bodies casting their ballots in each round. No objections to the haptics proposal were received in either round.  The proposal left the "WG level" after MPEG131 in July 2020 (for the CDAM/CD ballot) and moved to DAMD/DIS ballot after MPEG132 in October 2020 - a fact that was indeed mentioned in v01 of the I-D.



The ISO link to the DAMD is here: https://www.iso.org/standard/81604.html<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iso.org%2Fstandard%2F81604.html&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cb9be185f21b44df1b2f708d90e58c34b%7C4f05e41a59b8413aae19d5df3dfd0fb5%7C0%7C0%7C637556596669589491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=qwZKX%2B26UWRq%2FPyzp19%2BGfS9J9qG8C6FvmLedDer5w0%3D&reserved=0>.



To be clear, I have no issues with the other points you raise. Just want to make sure that the discussion is based on current reality.



Thanks,

Yeshwant



Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. | Senior Director, Standards



[e-mail] | [phone]



-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 10:48 PM
To: Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dispatch WG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <[e-mail]>; ART ADs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [art] [dispatch] Status of Haptics I-D in DISPATCH?



(adding the media-types list and doing a bit of trimming)



--On Monday, May 3, 2021 17:29 +0100 Ted Hardie <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:



> I think the set of work items Ned lays out might well be the basis for

> a working group.  I have concerns, however, with including the

> registration for a haptics top-level type in that work.

>

> As the draft points out, there is a good bit of active work going on

> related to haptics in other forums (e.g. the MPEG Systems File Format

> sub-group).  If the work on registering a top-level haptics type is

> interspersed with work on multiple media type suffixes and media types

> for programming languages, I have concerns about the speed with which

> it can complete.

> If we want to see haptic signals be treated appropriately as a media

> type, I suspect the time we have to do it is not unbounded.  My

> personal advice is thus to progress the haptics work separately.  If

> that means as an ad-sponsored draft, I'm personally okay with that,

> but I think the best other option is to do it as its own short-lived

> group.  The other work (and the relevant expertise) is pretty

> distinct.



Ted,



As you have probably figured out from my recent notes responding to Francesca and Claudio, I have a slightly different take on this, again somewhat different than Ned's comments.  One reason is that I think it would be really unfortunate to establish a precedent that the way to get a top-level media type is to invoke work going on at what I understand to be essentially the WG level in another SDO and then plead urgency.  I would feel somewhat differently about an established, recognized, deployed international standard, but, as I understand "active work in ...

MPEG Systems File Format sub-group", this is fairly far from that.



Analogies to other bodies treating I-Ds as if they are finished, consensus, IETF work product are probably useful here.



So, in the hope that the IETF is still an organization in which we can figure out what the right thing is to do and then make the procedures work with it, let me suggest something which may be a bit of a strawman:



(1) We get the WG that Ned proposed going, with adjustments as suggested.  Getting it going should not take long, e.g., no one

as proposed a BOF or two as prerequisites.   The first charge

for that WG should be to review prior work discuss criteria for new top-level media types.  I would hope that can be done fairly quickly.  If we cannot reach at least sufficient agreement to conclude that a Haptics top level type would be reasonable (independent of the details of how it is defined and who is defining it, much less candidate subtypes) then I suggest the proposal is dead in the water independent of what other bodies are or are not doing.



(2) Probably in parallel with the above, Francesca (or Murray) do a call for volunteers who are familiar with and involved in work on Haptics, in the MPEG group, in their "day job" settings, or elsewhere.  Where they are tapped as participants in a short-lived WG or as reviewers of a potential AD-sponsored document is probably unimportant, as long as they represent diverse perspectives.  The numbers, expertise, and industry coverage are important.  Based on the outcome of that poll, they reach a conclusion as to whether meaningful, informed, IETF consensus on the details of the proposal (presumably a revised

I-D) is plausible.



(3) If the outcome of (2) is that we have a sufficient number of such people, I don't have a strong preference between AD-sponsored and a short-lived WG.  However, the less clear the criteria are that emerge from (1) --or if the early result of that effort is general principles but not anything we would consider criteria-- the more I think a WG is needed.



(4) If the outcome of (1) is that a Haptics top-level type is plausible but that of (2) is that we don't have, in the judgment of the ADs,  the right combination of expertise, interest, and energy, then I suggest we cut a deal with the MPEG effort (close to one end of the pipeline) and/or the relevant ISO TC (the other end) in which we promise them that we will allocate the top-level media type and delegate responsibility for defining subtypes to them as soon as they tell us that a standard that described the properties and use of that type is finished (not being worked on, but finished).  Note that punts the question of how subtypes are evaluated and decided upon to another body.

Otherwise, that question is one of the harder issues facing the question of criteria for a new top-level type (and a subject on which I, personally, think the current I-D is fairly weak).



I don't know if it would be possible to complete the above before IETF 111, but, if not, we ought to be able to come fairly close.  And it is _really_ pragmatic.



  best,

   john













[1[

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinkprotect.cudasvc.com%2Furl%3Fa%3Dhttps%253a%252f%252fmailarchive.ietf.org%252farch%252fmsg%252fdispatch%252fRRIs5MxWbQuF9kJJclJ-KsFQNIg%26c%3DE%2C1%2C6G6eDTk9mcWs8uM122hKaDB0VrG8GnkKRboPw6fB2_Uk0RCPxB0I4AJmz_kiaV6x6hH9YVFkCIjyUrDrCvar10bLNPZHxnhFl2vdY6YRZpbwR-x73Q%2C%2C%26typo%3D1&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C0c8685de1863484c353008d90eaf6c6a%7C4f05e41a59b8413aae19d5df3dfd0fb5%7C0%7C1%7C637556968891437551%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=2woxbmYzryVC8LwiaH3%2FQqX3MpKmy6swcrYTRJABu0A%3D&amp;reserved=0



[2]

https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flinkprotect.cudasvc.com%2Furl%3Fa%3Dhttps%253a%252f%252fmailarchive.ietf.org%252farch%252fmsg%252fdispatch%252fzE9eMvNXpCXF1LWAMt3y-_2GjJ0%26c%3DE%2C1%2ChatQi5r0UG0Mih2C0qTKWqSwanmSjZB1qP6OUtqmoEv54rvdqzNMzyWS0pGKI22pTuojS3pMRy-JXiQ9VV5jflqvNUmH3UZysPJ6zpaBLbNBf3Z8L6oychaJolb2%26typo%3D1&amp;data=04%7C01%7C%7C0c8685de1863484c353008d90eaf6c6a%7C4f05e41a59b8413aae19d5df3dfd0fb5%7C0%7C1%7C637556968891437551%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=RdVZ172jKG0Z31HPBVVeuZgZ916IbaB36dFom6A9rXA%3D&amp;reserved=0