Subject: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 in Montreal, looking for volunteers and suggestions

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:01:08 -0400

Hi,

We’ve been working with Éric to see about having a “Media OPS” 
bof in Montreal, and I’ve copied a draft agenda/proposal framework, 
below.   Comments welcome.

As the BoF request deadline is approaching, I’d like to get some firm 
commits on concrete contributions (I-Ds are ideal; presentations are 
possible).   If you have a contribution you’d like to share in the 
agenda, please let me know; if you’ve already heard from me with a 
request, I’ll be following up :^) .

Media OPerationS (MOPS) BoF
Area: OPS
Chairs: Leslie Daigle ([email-masked]), Glenn Deen 
([email-masked])

Agenda

0/ Agenda bash

1/ Scope of video on the Internet
<contributions solicited>

2/ Video using IETF technologies
<contributions solicited; I was thinking that LURK and OpenCache might 
fit well here, again>

3/ Open questions for IETF and video

AOB

Full description of BoF:

Internet- and Internet-protocol-delivered video/media is popular, 
leading to significant technology development across industries not 
traditionally thought of as Internet technology developers or operators, 
as well as considerable quantities of traffic on local and transit 
networks. Continued development of Internet-using technologies should be 
properly coordinated in order to ensure that the existing technologies 
are well-utilized, and new ones are developed in sympathy with the 
Internet’s core protocols and design.

The purpose of this BoF is to highlight the many existing video 
activities that are leveraging IETF protocol work, identify gaps in IETF 
work and/or areas of incompatibility with video technology development 
efforts being carried out elsewhere, and identify a core group of IETF 
participants working on video activities across the IETF’s technology 
areas.

Conflicts to avoid: ???

Expected attendance: 40

Length of session: 90min

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:56:06 -0400

Hi Leslie-

IANAVG (I am not a video guy), but the GGIE discussions have been 
interesting to me.  IMO the BoF charter is missing some motivation that, 
in the interest of generating argument, I propose below.  I hope the BoF 
is approved.

---aaron

On 29 May 2019, at 14:01, Leslie Daigle wrote:

> traditionally thought of as Internet technology developers or 
> operators, as well as considerable quantities of traffic on local and 
> transit networks.

Is this a problem?

> Continued development of Internet-using technologies should be 

I’m not sure these are the most motivating goals.  Off the top of my 
head, here are a few candidates.   I’m sure YMMV:

* Maximize interoperability
* Establish metrics for quality
* Improve quality for any network conditions
* Make the best use of available infrastructure
* Identify challenges in operations: isolating performance, 
reachability, and interoperation issues

> activities that are leveraging IETF protocol work, identify gaps in 
> IETF work and/or areas of incompatibility with video technology 
> development efforts being carried out elsewhere, and identify a core 
> group of IETF participants working on video activities across the 
> IETF’s technology areas.

Given ‘operations’ is in the name, it seems like there should be a 
bit more exploration of the topic in the description.

--aaron

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 14:39:44 -0400

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for the thoughts — a few follow ups, inline:

On 29 May 2019, at 14:56, Aaron Falk wrote:

> interesting to me.  IMO the BoF charter is missing some motivation 
> that, in the interest of generating argument, I propose below.  I hope 
> the BoF is approved.
>
> ---aaron
>

Do I need to switch the order of that sentence and the one below?  
Because I think the problem is expressed in the second sentence.
>> properly coordinated in order to ensure that the existing 
>> technologies are well-utilized, and new ones are developed in 
>> sympathy with the Internet’s core protocols and design.
>
> I’m not sure these are the most motivating goals.

I think it’s kind of the key issue at hand:  you need to have a 
connection, before you can improve it.  Right now, IMO, we don’t even 
have a connection.

> Off the top of my head, here are a few candidates.   I’m sure YMMV:
>

I think these would be fine things to think about, as a second turn of 
the crank.  First turn: acknowledging there is a world of video 
technology development and deployment out there that is currently being 
undertaken using, but completely independent of, the IETF’s work.  
I’m typing this as I sit in one such  video meeting, where I’ve made 
a few impassioned interventions to urge people to come play at the IETF, 
and I can’t tell them where to engage.
> bit more exploration of the topic in the description.

You can, or anyone else is welcome to, send text :->

Leslie.

>
> --aaron
> _______________________________________________
> GGIE mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ggie

--