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

"Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com> Wed, 11 September 2019 20:20 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 5E24E1207FF; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c7aayzzd4eN6; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from egyptian.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (egyptian.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.56]) (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 1E8A71201CE; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
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 1DD788C2DE3; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 20:20:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a80.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-35-71.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.35.71]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B71808C26F7; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 20:20:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a80.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/5.17.5); Wed, 11 Sep 2019 20:20:11 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Wipe-Decisive: 3f9c8b714d1df305_1568233209234_4215012285
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1568233209234:4210112102
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1568233209234
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a80.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a80.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595EA800F0; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=thinkingcat.com; h=from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=thinkingcat.com; bh=e0rZW2SE8m8+mD 2pI4x/b+Lpqt4=; b=dGUuKnMFj2kpHVqwDRRIKyTixvekwPqHHLNmDLOXeH14Y5 HbmkwkD9IFFi4VLbyPCnjjR8qSeliEtOj5yW+7H5I03cb7JM1I7virhthTCJLqwZ CmewoPenDF9dkVd4V0KewH7fZADoUbTx5rO/DKZMPCClJ9UeudtuIGcSbB0Os=
Received: from [169.254.197.81] (vtelinet-216-66-102-83.vermontel.net [216.66.102.83]) (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-a80.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B13E8800EE; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a80
From: "Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
To: mops@ietf.org, ggie@ietf.org
Cc: "Eric Vyncke" <evyncke@cisco.com>, "Warren Kumari" <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 16:19:36 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635)
Message-ID: <E4CB259D-6E7B-4C66-B11A-4F4BD9DD4818@thinkingcat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_263E6A7F-BF94-4F7E-B78B-CDDEA3C14922_="
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrtdefgdduvddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvufffoffkgggtgfesrgekmherredtjeenucfhrhhomhepfdfnvghslhhivgcuffgrihhglhgvfdcuoehluggrihhglhgvsehthhhinhhkihhnghgtrghtrdgtohhmqeenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgpddutdehrdhtlhenucfkphepvdduiedrieeirddutddvrdekfeenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplgduieelrddvheegrdduleejrdekudgnpdhinhgvthepvdduiedrieeirddutddvrdekfedprhgvthhurhhnqdhprghthhepfdfnvghslhhivgcuffgrihhglhgvfdcuoehluggrihhglhgvsehthhhinhhkihhnghgtrghtrdgtohhmqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehluggrihhglhgvsehthhhinhhkihhnghgtrghtrdgtohhmpdhnrhgtphhtthhopehluggrihhglhgvsehthhhinhhkihhnghgtrghtrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mops/qO4YubSVFzgs5cJjnt9Id9D6g9w>
Subject: [Mops] Summing up... Re: [GGIE] [E] 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: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 20:20:19 -0000

Having chewed on this for a few days, I think (TL;DR — we probably are 
looking RG-ish, but a WG is what we really need):

Jake has a good point in saying that the topics and energy exposed so 
far on these mailing lists would give us reasonable grounds for a 
research group.  Assuming the IRTF Chair concurred with that, an RG 
would give us a stable meeting basis at IETF meetings to carry on with 
general discussions of points of interest between video and Internet 
protocols.

While I have only good things to say about research groups, I think 
Glenn also has a good point in saying that non-RG-like work is being 
done, protocols are being tinkered with, and operationally-critical work 
is happening to IETF-related protocols, just not at the IETF (I’ve 
quoted some of his text below [2]).  Nor are the people doing the work 
(currently) engaging in IETF work, for the most part ([1]).

As a result, either the work is going to just happen outside of the IETF 
(and suffer from a lack of general Internet engineering review that can 
be provided at the IETF), or the IETF has to find a way to attract that 
work/those engineers to come play.

I don’t believe an RG will do that last — attract the engineers or 
the work to the IETF.

If we want to go for the networking issues in the video industry, can we 
break the chicken and egg situation by at least articulating a small 
list of concrete work items that an OPS WG could tackle here?


Leslie.

[1] There are notable exceptions — but the bulk of the participation 
in these engineering activities is a disjoint set of engineers from IETF 
participation, at the moment.

[2] In his message of September 5, 2019, Glenn Deen wrote:
> Let's recall, that there have been 2 big motivators in the run up to 
> MOPS on why this was being looked at in the IETF:
>
> (1) First, is the video industry migration to IP networks for both 
> video creation, and video delivery and the current needs and
> issues this has created.
>
> (2) Second, is the technical challenges that have come along with that 
> migration/adoption which include dealing with latency
> and scalability of video on those IP networks.
>
>
> Orgs like SMPTE and Streaming Video Alliance have been tackling these 
> issues very well in the scope of their ability.  SMPTE
> did their SMPTE 2110 on how to use IP network in professional video 
> production.   The streaming video alliance has been working
> on things like CDN caching, location storage, security, privacy, geo 
> etc.  BUT each aren't covering the IP Network aspects of this work 
> that
> the IETF handles.     Both SMPTE and the Streaming Video Alliance in 
> turn depend on the IP Network standards done in the IETF.
>
> Groups like MPEG-DASH are working on the video player side of how to 
> use IP Networks to deliver video, but they too
> depend on the IETF's IP networking standards to build on.




On 5 Sep 2019, at 16:20, Holland, Jake wrote:

> Hi Glenn,
>
> Yay, healthy debate is so much better than a dead list. :)
>
>> I am saying that I think it's where one draws the line between
>> stuff in use TODAY on the network, and things being looked at for 
>> TOMORROW.
>> ...
>> The thing is though, that this problem isn't a theoretical research 
>> topic that
>> can linger through long discussions, experiments and academic papers 
>> exploring
>> the perfect solution.   This stuff is what companies are trying to do 
>> as
>> services to viewers today and are hitting the wall on doing it 
>> successfully at
>> extreme scale.
>
> I think this misunderstands the nature of a research group.
>
> I'll point to BBR as an interesting case in point.  Various versions 
> of it are
> deployed live today and at scale by major operators.  This is more or 
> less
> independent of the ongoing academic exploration about the way to get 
> ideal
> congestion control properties in networks.
>
> iccrg is the main IETF venue for discussing BBR, since it's clearly in 
> scope
> there, and nowhere else is right.  Just because it's technically 
> experimental
> (and still a work in progress, not even a bona-fide Experimental RFC) 
> doesn't
> mean anybody got stopped from deploying it unilaterally.
>
> During the time the deployment has happened, having the discussion 
> venue (as
> opposed to not having it) is just a pure win for the internet and for 
> the
> development of the CC algorithm, regardless that the venue happens to 
> be a
> research group (even though yes, iccrg occasionally includes 
> less-relevant
> things as well, at chair's discretion).
>
> I would anticipate the same for the hacks that video operators get 
> forced into
> to get their performance to work.  First you do what you have to in 
> order to
> solve your problem, and then you socialize and maybe standardize what 
> you've
> done so that more people avoid doing stuff that breaks you (and maybe 
> they can
> sometimes give you better suggestions along the way).
>
> Indeed, I think it would be worth adding to the charter that the 
> research
> group is focused on pressing operational problems observed in practice 
> and
> solution proposals with deployment experience, or at least viable 
> short-term
> deployment potential, as opposed to greenfield proposals that would 
> need
> major changes.
>
> In that sense, the suggestion to make it an RG is basically a 
> workaround for
> having the scope be unknown and fluid and broad.
>
> If there's a proposal with bits-on-wire level specificity, a bof for 
> the specific
> proposal would make lots of sense, but "learn about newly discovered 
> problems
> observed while attempting to scale SMTPE and try to think of what to 
> do about
> them" sounds like research to me even when it's about problems 
> happening today.
>
> Maybe there are some research groups that are too future-looking and 
> impractical,
> but I think that's driven by the problem space for the RG, rather than 
> being
> inherent to research groups in general.  If this group successfully 
> stays
> focused on stuff relevant to operators today, operators will want to 
> be here,
> and it doesn't matter what it's called.
>
> Also maybe worth looking again at the differences between the criteria 
> at
> the process level for forming a WG and an RG:
>
> WG: It seems to me we're missing on the top 2 points, due to scope 
> murkiness
> and a dearth of specific work items:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-2.1
>     - Are the issues that the working group plans to address clear and
>       relevant to the Internet community?
>     - Are the goals specific and reasonably achievable, and achievable
>       within a reasonable time frame?
>
> RG: I think we're in much better shape in general, and the urgency 
> here that
> Glenn has described falls basically under the 2nd point, as I 
> understand it:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2014#section-2.1
>    -  Will the formation of the Research Group foster work that would
>       not be done otherwise.
> (Answer: yes--this is a cry for help from video operators who got 
> stuck
> trying to migrate to IP for more things, and have no path or expertise
> in their existing standards bodies for improving the 
> networking-related
> issues they've encountered.)
>
> Where standardization is necessary or useful, I'd see a key part of 
> this RG's
> role as identifying the specific work to be done and spinning off WGs 
> for
> those specific protocols over the next few years, and then it can 
> close down
> as soon as media on the internet has been conclusively solved to 
> everyone's
> satisfaction and all the media requirements have become stable.  ;)
>
> Best,
> Jake
>
> On 2019-09-05, 10:49, "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" 
> <Glenn.Deen@nbcuni.com>; wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/5/19, 9:33 AM, "GGIE on behalf of Holland, Jake" 
> <ggie-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jholland@akamai.com>; wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Sorry for the slow response, I've got several things going on, and 
> my
>     response is complicated.  But I do still care, and I do still 
> support
>     normalizing this group.
>
>     (Also: sorry for not figuring this all out and making the case 
> better
>     back in February, but my current position was influenced by new
>     information from feedback during 105.)
>
>     TL/DR:
>     I think we should revisit the idea of making mops a research group
>     instead of a working group.
>
> I arrived at the opposite conclusion having worked much the same line 
> of reasoning that Jake raised.
>
> In respect to Jake, I'm not saying I think he is wrong.  I am saying 
> that I think it's where one draws the line between
> stuff in use TODAY on the network, and things being looked at for 
> TOMORROW.
>
> I suggest we don't worry about creating a home for every cases of 
> work, but for MOPS focus on the here and now stuff.
>
> What differentiates the work that I in MOPS is how close to real world 
> problems, production and deployment it would be.
> The video and IP network problems that are hot topics right now with 
> video creators, video distributors, and video viewers are
> uses of IP networking being developed and deployed operationally and 
> that fits best in a WG and not RG.
>
> Certainly there are research topics on video things that are more 
> experimental approaches, and for those MOPS might not be
> the right fit.    The GGIE proposal might have fit better into an RG, 
> but that's not what we are currently talking about.
>
> Perhaps down the road there may be enough experiment and research 
> video activity that is looking for a home in the IRTF
> that it would be right to create an additional group there, but that 
> isn't this current MOPS discussion in my view.
>
> Let's recall, that there have been 2 big motivators in the run up to 
> MOPS on why this was being looked at in the IETF:
>
> (1) First, is the video industry migration to IP networks for both 
> video creation, and video delivery and the current needs and
> issues this has created.
>
> (2) Second, is the technical challenges that have come along with that 
> migration/adoption which include dealing with latency
> and scalability of video on those IP networks.
>
>
> Orgs like SMPTE and Streaming Video Alliance have been tackling these 
> issues very well in the scope of their ability.  SMPTE
> did their SMPTE 2110 on how to use IP network in professional video 
> production.   The streaming video alliance has been working
> on things like CDN caching, location storage, security, privacy, geo 
> etc.  BUT each aren't covering the IP Network aspects of this work 
> that
> the IETF handles.     Both SMPTE and the Streaming Video Alliance in 
> turn depend on the IP Network standards done in the IETF.
>
> Groups like MPEG-DASH are working on the video player side of how to 
> use IP Networks to deliver video, but they too
> depend on the IETF's IP networking standards to build on.
>
> That's where I see MOPS filling an important role - ingesting and 
> maturing the needs from the real world of
> video that is using IP Networking as its network and transport and 
> then turning them in high qualify IETF documents that
> are either eventually turned into RFCs via MOPS or are handed over to 
> other WG when they've matured enough to be ready
> for those other groups to look at.    This is would be things are in 
> deployed production today, and things
> that are being deployed now as new services, and offerings.
>
> It's the timeliness of actual wide use that distinguishes things to 
> me, as well as who is doing it.
>
> An RG is a great place to connect with academics and industry 
> researchers.
>
> A WG is the place to connect with other doing-it-now industry 
> practitioners that are already at the IETF, and a place to for new 
> IETF
> participants who want to join the IETF to work with others.
>
>
> It's has long struck me as odd that we, meaning we the IETF, often 
> talk about video on the Internet as if was some edge use case of the 
> network
> and IP standards instead of seeing it as what is: The biggest, without 
> any close second, use of the Internet globally.   I think it's because 
> up to now
> we've been able to semi-ignore it because it wasn't placing major new 
> demands up the standards developed at the IETF.
>
> We’ve gotten away with it because until recently the video uses on 
> the Internet have been the easy stuff.  Things like P2P downloads of 
> movie files
> which benefitted from high distribution of file sources.  Or things 
> like streaming a recorded movie out to a few tens/hundreds of 
> thousands of people who
> wanted to watch it.     Those were the easy to solve use cases and not 
> the really hard stuff like like streaming a live event to hundreds of 
> millions of
> simultaneous viewers globally.
>
> You can scale delivery of a movie to tens or hundreds of thousands of 
> viewers by distributing it on many many caches.   Throwing more
> servers at the problem isn’t enough when you want to live stream, 
> with 6-8s of latency, a sports event to 500 million or more viewers.  
> That
> bigger use case is what is being sought today and it's at such as 
> scale that any inefficiency or rough spot in the network or its 
> technology
> gets stressed to the breaking point.
>
> That was an important point Jake's talk at the MOPS BoF highlighted.  
> The thing is though, that this problem isn't a theoretical research 
> topic that
> can linger through long discussions, experiments and academic papers 
> exploring the perfect solution.   This stuff is what companies are 
> trying to
> do as services to viewers today and are hitting the wall on doing it 
> successfully at extreme scale.
>
> And that's just one example of where MOPS would play a role by being a 
> WG that could pull together real world problems and the people who 
> want to
> work on it.     The work my well spin out specific needs to other WG 
> groups, but they would mature it and foster it to a point where it 
> could fit into the
> IETF's way of working and could help solve those problems that video's 
> stressing of the network bring out.
>
>
> -glenn
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GGIE mailing list
> GGIE@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ggie

-- 

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