Re: [Mops] [GGIE] [E] Updated proposed charter for a MOPS WG

["Leslie Daigle" <[e-mail]>]

I want to provide a few answers, in-line, while I think Jake and Glenn 
are articulating some of the more pressing strategic issues to resolve.


On 5 Sep 2019, at 12:11, Ali C. Begen wrote:

> Hi Eric
>
> I will bite first. I am fairly interested and willing to contribute to 
> the MOPS (if it takes off).
>
> Having said that, I have a number of high-level comments on the scope 
> and charter:
>
> 1) Soliciting input from other organizations: Is this supposed to be 
> thru liaisons? We all know how slow that process is and usually takes 
> several months before it can be sent/received due to different meeting 
> cycles. Or do we expect people from all the relevant organizations to 
> be on the MOPS list and communicate more quickly? The latter would be 
> nicer, but most organizations do not liaise/communicate that way.

I was certainly not thinking of formal liaisons — recall, I was chair 
of the IAB for 5 years, and have a very clear notion of just how well 
those work.

And, yet, I agree that all other organizations are not going to join a 
WG mailing list so that they can share their individual views.

However, my thinking was twofold:

1/ Putting that in the charter makes it clearer where people from other 
organizations might find the relevant part of the IETF to come talk to.

2/ We can have informal updates from other organizations — and, we 
already have, between Sanjay’s contributions on work being done at 
SVA, and the SMPTE perspective that Glenn shared.

>
> 2) Input from network operators: Besides the well-known common 
> problems, I don’t think we can expect any operator to report its 
> operational excellence or operational failures. Or do we expect that?

Indeed, and I’m sure every involved operator has an excellent network. 
  However,  time passes, things change, and I’ve certainly heard 
operators express, in other contexts, things that would make their lives 
easier or harder wrt a given technology.


>
> 3) Issues and opportunities in media acquisition and delivery. This 
> came up in the meeting, though I don’t recall which aspects of media 
> acquisition would be within the scope. Similarly, I don’t understand 
> well enough to comment on 4/ and 5/ below (like operation of media 
> technologies in the global Internet). What are the media technologies 
> that are referred to here and what do we mean by their operation in 
> the global Internet? Yes, most of the Internet traffic is video today, 
> but most of that video is not going around the globe to be delivered, 
> at least not in that amount. Replication/fanout is pretty close to the 
> edge. To me, that part of the network is more challenging than the 
> core.

Perhaps because I happen to live in places with ISPs too small to have 
tight CDN attachments, I think it is too soon to give up on the 
possibility of functional video across the core.

>
> I also agree that IETF protocols should be dealt with in their 
> respective working groups. HTTP is popularly used to carry video, and 
> that belongs to the HTTP working group but then maybe it would be a 
> good idea to provide a guidelines document on how to use HTTP caching 
> for video delivery in the MOPS WG.

Sure.  And maybe coordination of more video-specific requirements could 
be done in MOPS to share with the HTTP wg.


> Input from CDN and SP folks would certainly be useful to collect and 
> document, assuming they are willing to share their knowledge.
>
> I have a few other comments, but I hope this will stir up some 
> discussion.

Likewise — I’m mostly in listening mode.

Leslie.
>
> -acbegen
>
>
>> On Sep 5, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> [Adding the old GGIE mailing list as perhaps some GGIE members did 
>> not switch/join the MOPS mailing list]
>>
>> As the potential Area Director supporting a potential MOPS Working 
>> Group, I must:
>> 	• Thank Sanjay for his support (and comment)
>> 	• Wonder whether other group members are still supporting this 
>> MOPS effort?
>>
>> About 2) May be some members are not fully aware of IETF rules / 
>> processes, but, having only one reply for a charter review is not a 
>> good sign as it does not indicate a high level of support.
>>
>> Can people interested in MOPS review the charter (see below) and 
>> approve it? or suggest changes ? Or disapprove completely ?
>>
>> Please reply to all
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> -éric
>>
>> From: Mops <[e-mail]> on behalf of 
>> "sanjay.mishra=[e-mail]" 
>> <sanjay.mishra=[e-mail]>
>> Date: Friday, 30 August 2019 at 16:14
>> To: Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" 
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [Mops] [E] Updated proposed charter for a MOPS WG
>>
>> Hi Leslie – The proposed charter looks good. I just have a comment 
>> RE need of clarity on the text “or networks are inadequate to meet 
>> these updated requirements”.
>>
>> Otherwise, the charter seems consistent with the discussions during 
>> the BOF.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sanjay
>>
>>
>> From: Mops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Leslie Daigle
>> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 11:22 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [E] [Mops] Updated proposed charter for a MOPS WG
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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 concrete.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Leslie.
>>
>> —8<——8<——8<—
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> [I would like to add that the issue is more than to meet these 
>> “updated” requirements. In fact, I see MOPS to focus specifically 
>> on how protocols coming out of the IETF “factory” when used in 
>> “real-world” may have implications across the service delivery 
>> food chain. Some of the implications may be by design or not as 
>> expected. MOPS will help bring operational issue whether it relates 
>> to delivery of service using a protocol that is efficient (or 
>> inefficient), or, is the network on which protocol is running 
>> supporting the protocol “as-is” or is there a need for network 
>> operators adjust the network, or is there an issue for UA conforming 
>> to delivery using a particular protocol.].
>>
>> Not necessarily suggesting above commentary as a substitute text as 
>> it is not meant to be, but, a little more specificity will be 
>> helpful. I know, you do go into that part of specificity in the next 
>> paragraph but some up front clarity is useful.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Milestones
>>
>> July 2020 Taxonomy of Issues in Internet Media
>>
>> <more concrete, committed work items needed>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Leslie Daigle
>> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
>>
>> [e-mail]
>>
>> -- 
>> Mops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops
>
> _______________________________________________
> GGIE mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ggie

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------------