Re: [Mops] AD review of draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons-09

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Eric,

Please see below ...

On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 11:21 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Indeed,
>
>
>
> Finalized or at least decided ;-) As I said during the MOPS meeting in
> Vienna, github is one way, having -bis document is another way, and may be
> other ways may exist.
>
>
>
> Finally, all my comments are just like a WGLC comment, authors are free to
> ignore (and sorry if I was not clear).
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> -éric
>
>
>
> *From: *"Ali C. Begen" <ali.begen=[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, 8 April 2022 at 17:24
> *To: *"Holland, Jake" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, Jake Holland <
> [e-mail]>, Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>, MOPS Working
> Group <[e-mail]>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Mops] AD review of draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons-09
>
>
>
> Then obviously the living document process needs to be finalized.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 6:18 PM Holland, Jake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Kyle,
>
>
>
> Yes, there’s been some activity in the repo and we haven’t yet published a
> new draft.
>
>
>
> Spencer has split each of Eric’s comments into an issue, and in our 2
> sessions in the last 2 weeks we’ve discussed I think most of them so far
> with text for many, and we have another session scheduled for next week.
>
>
>
> Please do feel free to review and comment:
>
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-mops/draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons/issues
>
>
>
> I will highlight #98 in particular as a wordsmithing complaint that has us
> stumped.  I think we’ll happily take text suggestions that have any buy-in
> that they successfully clarify the use of “simultaneous” to more closely
> describe “at the same time, but with a latency-driven time gap between
> sender and receiver” without getting more verbose and hard to follow, else
> the default plan is to mark it ‘wontfix’:
>
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-mops/draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons/issues/98
>
>
I told Jake and Ali that I think one problem we're struggling with is that
something can be "simultaneous" on one timescale, and not on another
timescale. In addition to your AD review comment, this is a thing we're
trying to describe in MOQ as well - in the situation where live media is
ingested, syndicated, and distributed to users, that's not actually
"simultaneous", in the sense that someone in a sporting event would be
seeing the same thing at the same time on a phone as they would be seeing
on the field in front of them, but it's not stored-and-forwarded, either.

So I appreciate the nudge to think about this further.

Best,

Spencer

>
>
> -Jake
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Fri,2022-04-08 at 7:41 AM
> *To: *Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>, "Ali C.
> Begen" <[e-mail]>, Jake Holland <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=[e-mail]>, "
> [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, MOPS Working Group <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Mops] AD review of draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons-09
>
>
>
> Spencer, Jake, Ali: have you guys had a chance to address Éric's coments?
> The document is still in the "revised I-D needed" state on the data
> tracker. If there has been activity in the GitHub repo but no new draft
> pushed, that would also be useful information to share.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kyle
>
>
>
> --
>
> -acbegen
> Using iThumbs
>