[Mops] Last Call -- Minutes from MOPS at IETF 106 in Singapore

"Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com> Mon, 25 November 2019 16:25 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 045181209EC; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 08:25:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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] 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 gQBwME325eFg; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 08:25:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from camel.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (camel.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.29]) (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 7CEC81209EE; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 08:25:21 -0800 (PST)
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 96BC46A20E6; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:25:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a94.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-45-206.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.45.206]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BD8796A2046; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:25:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a94.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); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:25:20 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Suffer-Arch: 4f583a177e18eb92_1574699120267_1186036548
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1574699120267:1642241512
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1574699120266
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a94.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a94.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2429CB29; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 08:25:14 -0800 (PST)
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=psFWCOCB0on+iC dqg36QM0vXGNg=; b=WfGlKxqJt6S3Oh1+x3hIVTyqy7PQuva+cGmQeIl/adNJp1 ZqA3QWFVvG2caYT4pIBAEonUNODdr4zpjH9JNLS8Z9fsUXEIMoSVZkkrLWF9Cbf2 dVxUUfIXJnJxZYMvUs2b0LyE+xjK5FrxcbLETvsI/hr8NZDYsgFzT7uwEZFPY=
Received: from [100.64.56.33] (unknown [23.150.0.89]) (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-a94.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 969669CBD8; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 08:25:11 -0800 (PST)
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a94
From: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
To: mops@ietf.org, mops-chairs@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:25:10 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13r5655)
Message-ID: <8365D441-E8D6-44D0-8639-AF811B9BBA48@thinkingcat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_7685AD23-25EF-4123-87A5-584B7030646A_="
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mops/XNSXxdJAz_0fFEs6YFQQ28Gg1Zo>
Subject: [Mops] Last Call -- Minutes from MOPS at IETF 106 in Singapore
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: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:25:24 -0000

Hi,

I’ve copied the current state of the MOPS minutes below.  Assuming 
there are no objections, I will plan to post these on Tuesday, December 
3, 2019.

If there are errors or omissions, please let me know.

Thanks,

Leslie.

MOPs November 21 2019 - First MOPs WG meeting ever!
Alas, in conflict with TSVWG...
Chairs:  Leslie Daigle, Glenn Deen


No comments on agenda bash
Intro to WG

Review of Concrete work itmes
[15min] Draft of edge network operational considerations for streaming 
media
    - Jake Holland
    - draft-jholland-mops-taxonomy
    On milestone but not adopted

Key question: how to calculate the demand vs capacity in a way that will 
be useful for communicating today and archiving for posterity

    []
    [Jake] there is a mismatch between the maximum
    [Martin Thompson] try to break to where the capacity is important 
(last mile, core)
    [Dave Oran] is there a correlation between high demand and live 
data.
    [Glenn Deen] perhaps produce two charts, one for on-demand file to 
stream delivery and the other for live. different metrics are important, 
latency, BW,..
    [Jake] there is some trext about ABR in the document
    [Leslie Daigle] it seems there is interset in the content, need to 
see if this is a WG asopt.

    Action
    [Leslie] are we in favor of adopting
    [Leslie] Some hum for adopting low hum against it. 3 for in the 
jabber.

    [Aaron Falk] use known metrics.
    [Jake] will be happy to have co-authors.


Hum taken to adopt the document  - hum appeared to support adoption



### Updates from elsewhere

* Updates from other organizations' work
    - [15min] Sanjay Mishra - Streaming Video Alliance Labs initiative
    slide 3 is the list of the technical WGs
    SVA labs open source  slide 6 what they did so far in open caching

    [Leslie] did you provide feedback to the CDNI WG, not only brining 
new work.
    [Sanjay] the WG chiar are aware of what is happening in SVA.
    [Aaron] the slide colors are bad

    no more comments and questions



    - [5min] Glenn Deen -- reflections from SMPTE 2019

    Time synchronization is important
    [Roni Even]How to synchronize media from different sources e.g. 
different cameras with gos clocks. How is the media sent over the IP 
network and address the clock resolutions
    [Aaron] there is work in ITU on time solution. it is good if we can 
capture in MOPS the use case
    [Dave] data centers have more precise time and should be taken into 
account. use atomic clocks that are now cheap
    [Glenn] there is no one way for  measuring or distributing time.
    [Aaron] what is the focus in Jake's draft, production ,...?
    [Leslie] on the edge side

    [Glenn] security and integrity of time distribution is important in 
this space and maybe an new area of work/focus
    [Aaron] capturing SMPTE operational use cases and issues around time 
in draft maybe useful



### General discussion of issues
* Operational Issues Observed
    - [15min] Igor Lubashev -- QUIC and streaming
    how to measure delay and loss when the inforamtion is encryptes 
(QUIC)
    [Spencer Dawkins] first time OPS WG discuss this topic and not in 
Transport. Why using similar TCP flow is not enough
    [Igor] TCP and UDP applications getting different treatment.
    [Bernard Aboba] this assumes similar streaming applications, need 
more detail to allow the network to support for example layered media
    Spin bit in QUIC V1; support for loss bits may be in a QUIC 
extension.
    Need feedback from operators about the need for such montoring 
tools, were not present in QUIC WG
    [Spencer] explict signalling does it involve the endpoint
    [Igor] yes.
    [Spencer] do not understand how you can measure without involving 
the endpoints. This is a good direction, wish we started years ago
    [Igor] QUIC is new and scaled up the problem
    [Colin Perkins] there is a draft in tsvwg about the effects of 
header encryptions, please review the part about the network managment
    [Sanjay] this is good, there was feedback from operators and will 
continue to follow
    [Saker] how do you do without involving endpoints, there is work in 
MOSQUE to add explicit signals using proxies
    [Emile Stephan] as operator require the monitoring of network, were 
involved in spin bit and now working on loss bit.
    [Spencer] there was the plus BOF in Berlin talkin about providing 
information to on path observers which could not form a WG.
    [Emile] do not provide the session keys to the observers. endpoint 
support is important
    [Colin] in conferencing video there is the RTCP for reporting ftom 
the Endpoint. using reports from endpoints can be helpful.


General discusion of issues

[Eric Vyncke, responsible AD] happy with the session


AOB

Thanks to Roni Even for taking notes during the session.


High level summary as posted to Operations & Management wiki:

First meeting as a WG.  Discussion of draft-jholland-mops-taxonomy (edge 
network operational considerations for streaming media), and formal 
adoption as a WG work item.  Jake Holland would welcome a co-author to 
help move it forward.

Updates from elsewhere -- Streaming Video Alliance's use of CDNI 
protocol work; Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers 
(SMPTE) recent meeting highlights -- clear dependencies on reliable and 
granular time reporting in operations.

Issues for streaming operations -- overview of QUIC implications for 
networks streaming video.  There are extensions proposed in the QUIC WG, 
and operators interested in media delivery should go there to weigh in.


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------