[Mops] draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case review
"Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com> Thu, 11 November 2021 12:24 UTC
Return-Path: <jholland@akamai.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 38F813A0E99; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 04:24:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 g0WTSM_IjgeJ; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 04:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (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 7F4FE3A0E95; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 04:24:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122332.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with ESMTP id 1ABC50hb030162; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:24:14 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=zw8Ca7txbNSPs4VwtxqJKZRKkUH4cR+S5wrAwEMZnS4=; b=QZIaGI6Z4RTLPdLEI2IeXlDRkMBBMogWJjlaKWPxhEZ7Mruxp+GPLkCJLNma051EZyiG CM6g/2JKjsvjKd4p6BgOswCYl6TVFwz9oBTpBS2i4dAI+segkg67lkq8gemAs0Qf1EBb T5gwA22HipFCoXuFJXD89IYBTDm0saDJKj0rtd2ahZCddq11QrXKs8oyIf0DCbgsjDx+ fcjfhSnV5Qnp4aIgUzTbHPAimQaR0vo4K1VeTBbljtARRcqmIeY08pjJoC4QaU4VKl6A IIe38u/gAwd6aU9QOEsoHfUlBtRKxoWPdJWeZeSpbvGDEuZsxtEhsmhVg02BEUCIbiMs Xg==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint8 (a72-247-45-34.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.34] (may be forged)) by mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3c8hpbnvs4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:24:14 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1ABCJDMC009904; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 07:24:13 -0500
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.116]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com with ESMTP id 3c7w15v6d9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 11 Nov 2021 07:24:13 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.122) by ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.121) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.24; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 06:24:12 -0600
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.122]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.122]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.024; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 06:24:12 -0600
From: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>
To: "mops@ietf.org" <mops@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case review
Thread-Index: AQHX1vcIB8I2rBDyWE6hkCC6zpPDnQ==
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:24:12 +0000
Message-ID: <744AA478-473C-404F-B498-AD5BFDDDAA8B@akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.53.21091200
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.27.164.43]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <39A0F789EEE5CB4AA28E32FDD8F271DF@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.425, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-11-11_03:2021-11-11, 2021-11-11 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2111110073
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: RCp81CNLuTMYyVt4Z0576XgumlT0N85v
X-Proofpoint-GUID: RCp81CNLuTMYyVt4Z0576XgumlT0N85v
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-11-11_03,2021-11-11_01,2020-04-07_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2111110073
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mops/_Z5lPrDQGfr90UppLioFl-lYeyY>
Subject: [Mops] draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case review
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, 11 Nov 2021 12:24:21 -0000
Hi mops, I reviewed draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case-03, and sorry I was so much later than I promised. Notes below. --- Overall: This doc has some really good observations, and thanks to the authors for their work here. I'll reference and +1 Spencer's comments about direction and scope here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mops/obdNac9sc4ZQ51i4rwFbYCxRvZQ/ I do think this doc should probably turn into something with more breadth than the specific use case outlined in section 3 (while including coverage of that use case), but I'm not quite sure in which direction it's best to go. There are 2 reasonable directions that occur to me: Option 1: Make this document more about the AR space as a whole, with a section or 2 on the implications for how it drives a need for edge computing and what parts of AR can and can't be done without it (which although I'm not an AR expert, I imagine would imply including more material about different techniques in implementation like anchoring and probably several others, and how they impact things like the computational needs for different kinds of operating environments and use cases--for instance there are lower-end AR applications like superimposing cartoon characters in your cell phone images at the park or during your conference calls that do have tracking and acquisition issues but don't have head-tracking/motion sickness concerns, and discussing a spectrum that includes these would be in scope here), or Option 2: Make this document more about examples of media use cases currently being researched and developed that seem to need edge computing to be practical (which although I'm not an edge compute expert, I imagine would include some of the mentioned VR/360 points that Spencer highlighted in the doc, as well as perhaps some other examples like immersive video games with a VR headset, perhaps both local to a venue and remotely online). I went back and watched a little of the prior discussion, and the author comments seem to merge AR with VR sometimes, which tends to suggest the 2nd is what was intended. But as the info about tracking and acquisition makes clear in the doc, these are really pretty different in some important ways even though they share some concerns about head-tracking and motion-sickness-driven latency for the described history tour use case. So if the 2nd is the intent, we probably need this to be more about media requiring edge compute, with separate sections outlining the different considerations for the different cases. So I'm not sure which of these would be best, or if there's other similar possibilities, but I think covering the one use case seems too narrow, and the text size as it stands could probably usefully double or triple with relevant coverage of useful observations in either of those directions. (Also worth noting: I think trying to answer "both" would be a mistake here--the doc should pick a direction and expand as needed to give a worthwhile overview of the relevant space, IMO.) I guess that to me is the first and most important question to answer here before I know what to say about most of the rest of the doc. In retrospect, I kinda wish I had managed to articulate that feedback before the adoption call, but I do think there's some very worthwhile things to say in a doc like this on either front, so maybe it doesn't matter. (And I wouldn't be opposed to a "both" that takes the form "actually, this should be a separate doc for each of those things", though that might be more work than the authors intended to offer...) --- With that said, I do have a few points about the rest of the doc that can hopefully be useful feedback regardless of which direction it takes. Abstract: Probably needs to be tighter, and it seems weird that it highlights one requirement, I don't quite get why. I suspect agreeing on an abstract (or maybe intro) to try to fill a doc in under would be a decent way to settle the direction question, and would suggest floating a few proposals for discussion. But I'll highlight the editor's advice: https://www.rfc-editor.org/old/policy.html#policy.abstract Intro: - Probably better not to refer to "future" applications as much, and just work with "AR applications", or maybe "high fidelity AR applications" (or a better-suited industry term if there is one), if that's the intended scope. Use case walkthrough in section 3: - I'm unclear on whether the user agents in this scenario would be venue-owned or not, and this seems like a potentially critical issue for understanding what's the intended model. Is this supposed to be about user-owned devices with different platforms but similar capabilities, in a way that requires graceful degradation for users without these devices, so a variety of similar-but-different experience models depending on whether they're wearing a next-gen google glass kind of thing or if they're just one of the rubes with a smart phone? Or is this about handing out the same kind of device to a bunch of people during their tour, so they can all have a fundamentally similar tech experience? I *think* it's the 2nd, but I'm not sure, and that comes with significant implications on assumptions we can use for how the service can be operated. - The doc talks about the scope being "over the internet", but the use case seems to be about highly localized traffic in a venue- specific network. I think if this is about internet traffic it probably needs to cover more about the target deployment model that results in traffic not constrained to a local venue's network. I *think* maybe that's about a need for a cloud-based service anchor of some kind (url/api endpoint for app/etc) to be able to drive the discovery and media-handling delegation to local compute resources with certain minimum constraints it can ask for and provision? But the doc I think needs to get a lot more into what has to happen here to support the envisioned use case, I think. I think this also has an impact on the "venue-driven" question above, because it seems like that kind of model only makes sense if you're talking about user-owned devices. Or is the only internet piece of this just the inevitable advertising/purchase confirmation stream for the gift shop, which needs to be able to talk between the venue's device and the user's wallet manager or credit card? (A case not really in mops's scope, btw.) Or are we talking about some kind of user-owned budget on low-latency compute that comes from their 5g provider and takes care of their processing in this tour, so the image processing has to link through their mobile device in some standard way? Or is it something else? --- Summary: There's some major gaps in this doc, but building a useful structure on which to hang the outstanding insights and references in the requirements section seems worthwhile, and I do still think the wg should hammer on this to see if we can encourage the authors to flesh this out into a doc we'll be glad we have when these AR/VR customers come knocking. I hope others will chime in too, and sorry mine took so long. It's not easy for me to write a review this loosey-goosey; I just feel kinda lost and confused trying to explain what I'm thinking in a way that might be useful, so it really helps to have someone poking at me with a sharp stick, thanks again Leslie for not giving up on that. Best, Jake
- [Mops] draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case review Holland, Jake
- Re: [Mops] draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case review Renan Krishna