Re: [Mops] So, what is streaming media, anyway? :-)

[Kyle Rose <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:32 PM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear MOPS,
>
> We have an issue in
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-mops/draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons/  that
> proposes a "low-latency" section in draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons, and
> discussion on that PR is starting to poke at what I understood the limits
> of MOPS scope to be, bringing in (checks notes) "RTMP, RTSP 2.0, WebRTC and
> globally all kinds of RTP-based streaming techs", STADIA, and SRT as
> possible topics.
>
> This is, I think, the kind of conversation that we should be having on the
> working group mailing list ("when a topic is bigger than a conversation on
> an issue in Github ought to be").
>
> Could people take a look at
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-mops/draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons/issues/3,
> and let the working group know your thoughts?
>

<chair hat=on>
I've added a comment asking people to take further discussion of that issue
to the mailing list prior to merging any related changes.
</chair>

>From my reading of the charter, there's nothing disqualifying MOPS from
addressing realtime media delivery issues, so long as we:

 * Restrict our scope to the interaction of media-related protocols with
the network and not move higher in the technology stack; and
 * Focus on development of informational documents related to issues that
affect operations for use by other working groups and SDOs, and not get
into the business of developing protocols ourselves.

Clearly, realtime use cases (such as for interactive applications such as
Stadia and for hand-wave latency minimization on live broadcasts) impose
requirements on networks, protocols, and their interactions. I see MOPS as
having been chartered for the express purpose of sussing out such
requirements by leveraging the expertise and experience of a broad range of
SMEs who would otherwise not have had a natural forum in the IETF for such
collaboration.

Kyle