[Mops] Updated proposed charter for a MOPS WG

"Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com> Fri, 23 August 2019 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
X-Original-To: mops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FE612085C for <mops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gre-h6F6U1N4 for <mops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from butterfly.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (butterfly.birch.relay.mailchannels.net []) (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 77843120C9D for <mops@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost []) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45F48C3001; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:22:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-86-117.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local []) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2B5E68C31F6; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:22:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by (trex/5.17.5); Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:22:17 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Interest-Stupid: 36ffab8457c3db2b_1566573737580_3574026630
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1566573737580:3157408414
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1566573737580
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (localhost []) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379F783476; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=thinkingcat.com; h=from:to :subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=thinkingcat.com; bh=FBhori6lgvw/Ce ZQ8TDrTB/tGus=; b=JE3nWAO8YQtZvHt4bWo53JGUUKUtgNY1TXaCAft1dn3yVD xV1KjXyrDm57Z9YZyV0P0xADemppXeu2oFecY2qKgS6s6l6ZR7a/biHc9B8hTIpj 8/RQq5hYk3ToB2m02ug34MyIKifYxj6pa3LQrJZq3PeeOqaFJridKt8GtvBs0=
Received: from [] (vtelinet-216-66-102-83.vermontel.net []) (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-a77.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5808283471; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 08:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a77
From: "Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
To: mops@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:22:07 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635)
Message-ID: <76DEB7E9-5E0F-4306-9975-7285D8EB51BC@thinkingcat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_5921CC70-DA69-4B12-A44E-A6292D40B48B_="
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudegkedgkeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffokfggtgfgsegrkehmreertdejnecuhfhrohhmpedfnfgvshhlihgvucffrghighhlvgdfuceolhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomheqnecukfhppedvudeirdeiiedruddtvddrkeefnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopegludeiledrvdehgedrfedurddufeehngdpihhnvghtpedvudeirdeiiedruddtvddrkeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpedfnfgvshhlihgvucffrghighhlvgdfuceolhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtoheplhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mops/UFYO_HUWFhDojyfVkPRr1OH8US8>
Subject: [Mops] Updated proposed charter for a MOPS WG
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:22:21 -0000


The two clear takeaways I had from the MOPS bof at IETF 105 were that 
there is interest in “this area of work” and that the proposed 
charter was not nearly crisp enough to agree on what the area of work 
was, or the specific things to be done.

As I said in the meeting, the challenge in trying to be crisp by 
narrowing the focus is that we actually need a rather broad 
“catchment” area, specifically pulling in things from several areas 
within the IETF and being open to input from other organizations.  To 
achieve some level of sanity, I’ve attempted to make things clearer by 
being more specific about the work to be done.  I’ve copied below an 
UPDATED proposed charter, that is aiming to be at least a little more 

Action items:

1/ Please review the draft charter and provide feedback.  (Yes, it looks 
like the sort of thing you would like to see chartered; suggestions for 
greater crispness, etc).

2/ Of particular importance, we need more work items in the Milestones.  
I told the ADs that I didn’t want to just write a bunch of things and 
then try to badger people into working on them (though I will if I have 
to :^) ).  I’d rather have suggestions from interested parties about 
the things they are willing to work on in this area, or that they’d 
like to see done with a little help from others.

Okay — please comment.



Media OPS WG

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. MOPS’ focus is on identifying areas where existing protocols 
and/or networks are inadequate to meet 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, inter-domain and single domain networking. 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 premise of MOPS is that 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 acts as a 
clearinghouse to identify appropriate venues for further protocol 
development, where necessary.

MOPS goals include documenting existing protocol and operational issues 
with media on the Internet, and identifying requirements for potential 
IETF work.

To those ends, 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 innovations 
developed outside the IETF

4/ Document operational requirements for media acquisition 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.

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.

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.


July 2020  Taxonomy of Issues in Internet Media

<more concrete, committed work items needed>


Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises