[Mops] Updated charter text and comments Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Block on charter-ietf-mops-00-01: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)
"Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com> Thu, 17 October 2019 11:55 UTC
Return-Path: <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
X-Original-To: mops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939051200E3; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=thinkingcat.com
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 Gee-VoY-UefD; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bonobo.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (bonobo.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72E561200C5; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:55:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3D35A1393; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 11:55:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a40.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-6-135.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.6.135]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E06995A12FC; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 11:55:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a40.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 11:55:36 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Trail-Ruddy: 22be12425527c8bc_1571313336348_3233809071
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1571313336348:4271722074
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1571313336347
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a40.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a40.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4689793117; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=thinkingcat.com; h=from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=thinkingcat.com; bh=Q 2pGNLX2PCjjzeWW2q9cJeVI7Sk=; b=WQiNrcqSiYZ/4gBt1R+Na4k9PPJP8Uv2P f8/a+qe85hCel4avR1Za6E2Cwkm6hhpSjNb1LeMTo3+IOL2Hfqul0b2dfwq1ng14 tT2uXiLjMRPQqAd63rbzdKQlXN/HSzO+38U6BTHOTPhDBxXvbEA2eSoDqllfCzBt uWcygSLkWs=
Received: from [193.0.26.165] (dhcp-26-165.mtg.ripe.net [193.0.26.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ldaigle@thinkingcat.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a40.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FF919306C; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a40
From: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: mops-chairs@ietf.org, mops@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:55:28 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13r5655)
Message-ID: <39DFE74A-1C50-4E4B-B620-A92E2CC56BE7@thinkingcat.com>
In-Reply-To: <157126760619.7940.17435223121734531238.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <157126760619.7940.17435223121734531238.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_EF1B9B9E-D6CF-4E3C-A9F3-44781EE35807_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mops/2CdENTz9BTfJ8c2tjuPj5-qr9as>
Subject: [Mops] Updated charter text and comments Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Block on charter-ietf-mops-00-01: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Media OPerationS <mops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mops>, <mailto:mops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mops/>
List-Post: <mailto:mops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops>, <mailto:mops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 11:55:42 -0000
Hi, Replying to this particular message, but collectively responding to all comments and discussion (in advance of today’s IESG call). I’ve updated the charter, below, based on the items that seem to be agreed. There are a couple of points still open: 1/ How this group continues (or stops): [Mirja wrote:] > In the IESG we discussed that this group has a different character > than most of > the other groups we have so far and as such chartering this group has > some > experimental character. My questions is how do we decide if having > this group > is a success or when we want or need to close this group at any time > in the > future? I would like to see something about this in the charter. [Adam wrote:] >> There must be a continuing 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. > > Some mention of the mechanics of how this continuing interest will be > determined > would be welcome. My understanding is that the WG exists at the pleasure of the IESG, so you can shut it down any time you think it isn’t useful. That said, I appreciate that can be messy :^) and setting expectations would be helpful. For whether we keep up with an item or not, traditionally we’ve had working group discussions about whether or not anyone still saw value in it or not. Perhaps that ties in with the question of whether there is the believe that a particular item seems to have archival importance or not (now included in the charter text, below). Is that enough? Though, I don’t know what specific success metrics would be useful to answer Mirja’s question. 2/ Specific documents [Mirja wrote:] > I don't fully understand the goal of the milestones: documenting > Streaming > Video Alliance (SVA)/Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) > reliance > on IETF protocols. > > The charter says: > "Solicit regular updates from other media technology developing > consortia/standards bodies working with IETF-developed protocols." > > This sounds like the group would use presentation time and the slides > in the > processing to get these updates and not necessarily write RFCs. FYI, both SVA and SMPTE have been presented — at the MOPS BoF in Montreal. The point of pursuing these as documents is: to keep the discussion going, as the dependencies evolve; to (hopefully!) draw in more of the technical participants of those groups to IETF discussions (in MOPS and other relevant WGs); to get the information circulated more broadly (we do all still read the Internet-Draft announce list, right? ;-) ). So, I think they are valid as work items. I could agree that they might not need to be published as RFCs for archiving: the updated charter text suggests that it would take an explicit discussion/decision of the working group to pursue that. Updated charter text: Media OPerationS WG Charter Internet- and Internet-protocol-delivered media is widespread, 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. The focus of MOPS is on identifying areas where existing protocols and/or networks are challenged by these updated requirements. 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; and inter-domain and within-domain networking. In the context of this working group, 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. MOPS provides a venue for both video industry and Internet engineering experts to engage in discussion of video technology’s requirements of networking standards, as well as proposals for new uses of IP technology in video. Where new protocols are needed, MOPS will help identify candidate venues for their development. The goals of MOPS include documenting existing protocol and operational issues with media on the Internet, and identifying requirements for potential IETF work. The general process of elaboration through documentation will be for issues to be identified (on the mailing list) and presentations made at WG meetings. When topics merit more coherent documentation, MOPS will adopt working group documents to capture the information in Internet-Drafts. If the material of the Internet-Draft is deemed generally useful for archival purposes, the WG will seek publication of the work items as RFCs. At any point — from early discussion of topics, through later documentation stages — MOPS may identify a more appropriate WG for the matter and/or document, and dispatch it. With that in mind, MOPS will: 1/ Solicit regular updates from other media technology developing consortia/standards bodies working with IETF-developed protocols. 2/ 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. 3/ Solicit discussion and documentation of the issues and opportunities in media acquisition and delivery, and of the resulting protocols and technologies developed outside the IETF. 4/ Document operational requirements for media acquisition (for example, from cameras and recording devices) and delivery. 5/ Develop operational information to aid in operation of media technologies in the global Internet. These activities should document media operational experience, including global Internet, inter-domain and within-domain operations. In all cases of working with other organizations mentioned above, MOPS will work with existing liaison managers where the IETF has them, and informal connections with other organizations otherwise. If new formal liaison relationships are required, MOPS will work with the IAB to help establish them. Media operational and deployment issues with specific protocols or technologies (such as Applications, Transport Protocols, Routing Protocols, DNS or Sub-IP Protocols) remain the 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. There must be a continuing 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. On 16 Oct 2019, at 19:13, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker wrote: > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-mops-00-01: Block > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut > this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mops/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > BLOCK: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In the IESG we discussed that this group has a different character > than most of > the other groups we have so far and as such chartering this group has > some > experimental character. My questions is how do we decide if having > this group > is a success or when we want or need to close this group at any time > in the > future? I would like to see something about this in the charter. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't fully understand the goal of the milestones: documenting > Streaming > Video Alliance (SVA)/Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) > reliance > on IETF protocols. > > The charter says: > "Solicit regular updates from other media technology developing > consortia/standards bodies working with IETF-developed protocols." > > This sounds like the group would use presentation time and the slides > in the > processing to get these updates and not necessarily write RFCs. > > > -- > Mops mailing list > Mops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Daigle Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises ldaigle@thinkingcat.com -------------------------------------------------------------------
- [Mops] Mirja Kühlewind's Block on charter-ietf-mo… Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
- [Mops] Updated charter text and comments Re: Mirj… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [Mops] Updated charter text and comments Re: … Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [Mops] Mirja Kühlewind's Block on charter-iet… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [Mops] Mirja Kühlewind's Block on charter-iet… Mirja Kuehlewind