From nobody Wed May 29 11:01:39 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ggie@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ggie@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CDC12016B for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:01:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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] 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 dZuSHkC-amvM for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from purple.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (purple.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.150]) (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 97963120033 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:01:35 -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 314858C23D8; Wed, 29 May 2019 18:01:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-89-88.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.89.88]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7F2818C12FA; Wed, 29 May 2019 18:01:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a73.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/5.17.2); Wed, 29 May 2019 18:01:34 +0000 X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost X-Battle-Rock: 32b49ccd26c43dcc_1559152894027_2951258790 X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1559152894027:2578295095 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1559152894027 Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783FE7F5A4; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:01:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=thinkingcat.com; h=from:to :subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=thinkingcat.com; bh=hZtuRFKHnoWj6Q 3HgWJ0Mo3W+jI=; b=s4JMLEq8d0zrA8P8aa8gdV3AFzOLK9Ci3k80n6ezKhfaV4 qK2bCi7WcXYDLBO482eTtFES2MdjnDYOnnxvn+wSSdDDHI1YEr6QVdXpvaLGWw1T M10BzoMN3yrZS00wnG/J+eLKOVHgX+DYmz/B9vEYg4ooYKUpq1OJIOLHcmBAc= Received: from [192.168.129.218] (unknown [69.241.19.12]) (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-a73.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 479277FE61; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:01:23 -0700 (PDT) X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a73 From: "Leslie Daigle" To: ggie@ietf.org Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:01:08 -0400 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635) Message-ID: <694B8D88-4811-4EC3-BC16-83B37E2EB2D2@thinkingcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_015B1C17-49ED-4A01-B6A2-6395EB5E338D_=" X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK X-VR-OUT-SCORE: 0 X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddruddvjedguddvvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhephffvufffoffkgggtgfesrgekmherredtjeenucfhrhhomhepfdfnvghslhhivgcuffgrihhglhgvfdcuoehluggrihhglhgvsehthhhinhhkihhnghgtrghtrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepieelrddvgedurdduledruddvnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedruddvledrvddukegnpdhinhgvthepieelrddvgedurdduledruddvpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpedfnfgvshhlihgvucffrghighhlvgdfuceolhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtoheplhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 in Montreal, looking for volunteers and suggestions X-BeenThere: ggie@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discuss IETF-related items for Glass to Glass Internet Ecosystem of Video Content List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 18:01:38 -0000 --=_MailMate_015B1C17-49ED-4A01-B6A2-6395EB5E338D_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; markup=markdown Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, We=E2=80=99ve been working with =C3=89ric to see about having a =E2=80=9C= Media OPS=E2=80=9D=20 bof in Montreal, and I=E2=80=99ve copied a draft agenda/proposal framewor= k,=20 below. Comments welcome. As the BoF request deadline is approaching, I=E2=80=99d like to get some = firm=20 commits on concrete contributions (I-Ds are ideal; presentations are=20 possible). If you have a contribution you=E2=80=99d like to share in th= e=20 agenda, please let me know; if you=E2=80=99ve already heard from me with = a=20 request, I=E2=80=99ll be following up :^) . Media OPerationS (MOPS) BoF Area: OPS Chairs: Leslie Daigle (ldaigle@thinkingcat.com), Glenn Deen=20 (glenn.deen@nbcuni.com) Agenda 0/ Agenda bash 1/ Scope of video on the Internet 2/ Video using IETF technologies 3/ Open questions for IETF and video AOB Full description of BoF: Internet- and Internet-protocol-delivered video/media is popular,=20 leading to significant technology development across industries not=20 traditionally thought of as Internet technology developers or operators,=20 as well as considerable quantities of traffic on local and transit=20 networks. Continued development of Internet-using technologies should be=20 properly coordinated in order to ensure that the existing technologies=20 are well-utilized, and new ones are developed in sympathy with the=20 Internet=E2=80=99s core protocols and design. The purpose of this BoF is to highlight the many existing video=20 activities that are leveraging IETF protocol work, identify gaps in IETF=20 work and/or areas of incompatibility with video technology development=20 efforts being carried out elsewhere, and identify a core group of IETF=20 participants working on video activities across the IETF=E2=80=99s techno= logy=20 areas. Conflicts to avoid: ??? Expected attendance: 40 Length of session: 90min Leslie. --=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Daigle Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises ldaigle@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- --=_MailMate_015B1C17-49ED-4A01-B6A2-6395EB5E338D_= Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

We=E2=80=99ve been working with =C3=89ric to see about ha= ving a =E2=80=9CMedia OPS=E2=80=9D bof in Montreal, and I=E2=80=99ve copi= ed a draft agenda/proposal framework, below. Comments welcome.

As the BoF request deadline is approaching, I=E2=80=99d l= ike to get some firm commits on concrete contributions (I-Ds are ideal; p= resentations are possible). If you have a contribution you=E2=80=99d li= ke to share in the agenda, please let me know; if you=E2=80=99ve already = heard from me with a request, I=E2=80=99ll be following up :^) .

Media OPerationS (MOPS) BoF
Area: OPS
Chairs: Leslie Daigle (ldaigle@thinkingcat.com), Glenn Deen (glenn.deen@nbcuni.com)

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 operato= rs, as well as considerable quantities of traffic on local and transit ne= tworks. Continued development of Internet-using technologies should be pr= operly coordinated in order to ensure that the existing technologies are = well-utilized, and new ones are developed in sympathy with the Internet=E2= =80=99s 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 i= n IETF work and/or areas of incompatibility with video technology develop= ment efforts being carried out elsewhere, and identify a core group of IE= TF participants working on video activities across the IETF=E2=80=99s tec= hnology areas.

Conflicts to avoid: ???

Expected attendance: 40

Length of session: 90min

Leslie.

--

Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises

ldaigle@thinkingcat.com

--=_MailMate_015B1C17-49ED-4A01-B6A2-6395EB5E338D_=-- From nobody Wed May 29 11:59:15 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ggie@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ggie@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854AE120096 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:59:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.709 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.709 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 NNWHuAIYBRZK for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::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 573C612006E for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0122331.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4TIraYU002258; Wed, 29 May 2019 19:59:09 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=jan2016.eng; bh=rR52rBfhuBfhXnZ+MqP0cWSevcQTp2blBman1+XXD2Q=; b=o5wGUZMeQn/c4ERoEJIE9GpoViT/e3MnM0+HVFLaqbmNZnwdqwJW7UAAplFkjodleIa3 7W2Kkm+czKVK/4lJzwslFeO8R4pnERlKP/fql0YCUKNV5UtIHCW4JWOuZfeNwtd0ie7M pY32qNG3wR5BPNWXps9BvQNHNCsfMqpgtZvvX10sIHJQf8UoRJGL5MObHkU7m1+aTlaR qIQMzr/hzWW0yJeSnUS4w55rlVOTYOrBXNzHTDOYn6K5U4fgEZDPCyX/Sb38JE5mtvaU OwwEE3yJCpaQiYGsfeLncovVx3Shsa0gA/tLnI6lIy4Id+yUVXY8o0WGtGzhuIhLCN6b xQ== Received: from prod-mail-ppoint1 (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [184.51.33.18] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ssdhmkjhb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 May 2019 19:59:09 +0100 Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4TImKWY031083; Wed, 29 May 2019 14:59:09 -0400 Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.25.31]) by prod-mail-ppoint1.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2sq11vcc5a-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 May 2019 14:59:08 -0400 Received: from [172.19.37.146] (172.19.37.146) by ustx2ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 29 May 2019 11:56:09 -0700 From: Aaron Falk To: Leslie Daigle CC: Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 14:56:06 -0400 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <694B8D88-4811-4EC3-BC16-83B37E2EB2D2@thinkingcat.com> References: <694B8D88-4811-4EC3-BC16-83B37E2EB2D2@thinkingcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_364D8E3D-E838-4020-B34A-837166C88B0B_=" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [172.19.37.146] X-ClientProxiedBy: USTX2EX-CAS5.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.25.34) To ustx2ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.107) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-05-29_10:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905290121 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-05-29_10:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905290122 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 in Montreal, looking for volunteers and suggestions X-BeenThere: ggie@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discuss IETF-related items for Glass to Glass Internet Ecosystem of Video Content List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 18:59:14 -0000 --=_MailMate_364D8E3D-E838-4020-B34A-837166C88B0B_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed; markup=markdown Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: > 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. Is this a problem? > 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. 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 > > 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. Given ‘operations’ is in the name, it seems like there should be a bit more exploration of the topic in the description. --aaron --=_MailMate_364D8E3D-E838-4020-B34A-837166C88B0B_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Leslie-

IANAVG (I am not a video guy), but the GGIE discussions h= ave been interesting to me. IMO the BoF charter is missing some motivati= on 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:

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 operato= rs, as well as considerable quantities of traffic on local and transit ne= tworks.

Is this a problem?

Continued development of Internet-using technologies shou= ld be properly coordinated in order to ensure that the existing technolog= ies are well-utilized, and new ones are developed in sympathy with the In= ternet=E2=80=99s core protocols and design.

I=E2=80=99m not sure these are the most motivating goals.= Off the top of my head, here are a few candidates. I=E2=80=99m sure Y= MMV:

  • 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, reachabilit= y, and interoperation issues

The purpose of this BoF is to highlight the many existing= video activities that are leveraging IETF protocol work, identify gaps i= n IETF work and/or areas of incompatibility with video technology develop= ment efforts being carried out elsewhere, and identify a core group of IE= TF participants working on video activities across the IETF=E2=80=99s tec= hnology areas.

Given =E2=80=98operations=E2=80=99 is in the name, it see= ms like there should be a bit more exploration of the topic in the descri= ption.

--aaron

--=_MailMate_364D8E3D-E838-4020-B34A-837166C88B0B_=-- From nobody Thu May 30 11:40:19 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ggie@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ggie@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02EE4120153 for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 11:40:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.413 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.415, 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 xjYHm_Ot3h9p for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 11:40:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cichlid.maple.relay.mailchannels.net (cichlid.maple.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.214.36]) (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 7E8301200FD for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 11:40:13 -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 A709E8C1135; Thu, 30 May 2019 18:40:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-85-75.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.85.75]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E3A868C20B9; Thu, 30 May 2019 18:40:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.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/5.17.2); Thu, 30 May 2019 18:40:12 +0000 X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|ldaigle@thinkingcat.com X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost X-Blushing-Cure: 0200f7ea7c913557_1559241612474_2310553056 X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1559241612474:2483373201 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1559241612473 Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a77.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438737FFD6; Thu, 30 May 2019 11:40:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=thinkingcat.com; h=from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=thinkingcat.com; bh=i QRP0NsAez8OUFp8egbbPymUtJg=; b=bU30ldm/LwTgXm2ufXcOjdhvNuiz0qqnu 1uoEMzrmKw1VMLN29XuIOQjnyQ6nQE+4tj2DF7Io+JkOrmodzzFlIU8iNwR6PgU5 PQkwSKdess/Nm55MkY6f17XPJGo9vLLrSnsjJ/X75WBJj9AafzFgkHluaEoZD8dh OsmatEwC54= Received: from [192.168.161.251] (unknown [69.241.19.12]) (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-a77.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 787937FFD5; Thu, 30 May 2019 11:40:03 -0700 (PDT) X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a77 From: "Leslie Daigle" To: "Aaron Falk" Cc: ggie@ietf.org Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 14:39:44 -0400 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635) Message-ID: <6F93D9C6-B35D-4C35-94BC-4B1548903362@thinkingcat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <694B8D88-4811-4EC3-BC16-83B37E2EB2D2@thinkingcat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_256F41B1-A9EC-4692-AFC0-6691449CE84B_=" X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100 X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddruddvledguddvlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefhvffufffokfgjfhggtgfgsegrkehmreertdejnecuhfhrohhmpedfnfgvshhlihgvucffrghighhlvgdfuceolhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepieelrddvgedurdduledruddvnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedrudeiuddrvdehudgnpdhinhgvthepieelrddvgedurdduledruddvpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpedfnfgvshhlihgvucffrghighhlvgdfuceolhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtoheplhgurghighhlvgesthhhihhnkhhinhhgtggrthdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [GGIE] Proposing an actual BoF for IETF 105 in Montreal, looking for volunteers and suggestions X-BeenThere: ggie@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discuss IETF-related items for Glass to Glass Internet Ecosystem of Video Content List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 18:40:17 -0000 --=_MailMate_256F41B1-A9EC-4692-AFC0-6691449CE84B_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; markup=markdown Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Aaron, Thanks for the thoughts =E2=80=94 a few follow ups, inline: On 29 May 2019, at 14:56, Aaron Falk wrote: > Hi Leslie- > > IANAVG (I am not a video guy), but the GGIE discussions have been=20 > interesting to me. IMO the BoF charter is missing some motivation=20 > that, in the interest of generating argument, I propose below. I hope=20 > the BoF is approved. > > ---aaron > > On 29 May 2019, at 14:01, Leslie Daigle wrote: > >> Full description of BoF: >> >> Internet- and Internet-protocol-delivered video/media is popular,=20 >> leading to significant technology development across industries not=20 >> traditionally thought of as Internet technology developers or=20 >> operators, as well as considerable quantities of traffic on local and=20 >> transit networks. > > Is this a problem? Do I need to switch the order of that sentence and the one below? =20 Because I think the problem is expressed in the second sentence. > >> Continued development of Internet-using technologies should be=20 >> properly coordinated in order to ensure that the existing=20 >> technologies are well-utilized, and new ones are developed in=20 >> sympathy with the Internet=E2=80=99s core protocols and design. > > I=E2=80=99m not sure these are the most motivating goals. I think it=E2=80=99s kind of the key issue at hand: you need to have a=20 connection, before you can improve it. Right now, IMO, we don=E2=80=99t = even=20 have a connection. > Off the top of my head, here are a few candidates. I=E2=80=99m sure Y= MMV: > > * 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,=20 > reachability, and interoperation issues I think these would be fine things to think about, as a second turn of=20 the crank. First turn: acknowledging there is a world of video=20 technology development and deployment out there that is currently being=20 undertaken using, but completely independent of, the IETF=E2=80=99s work.= =20 I=E2=80=99m typing this as I sit in one such video meeting, where I=E2=80= =99ve made=20 a few impassioned interventions to urge people to come play at the IETF,=20 and I can=E2=80=99t tell them where to engage. > >> >> The purpose of this BoF is to highlight the many existing video=20 >> activities that are leveraging IETF protocol work, identify gaps in=20 >> IETF work and/or areas of incompatibility with video technology=20 >> development efforts being carried out elsewhere, and identify a core=20 >> group of IETF participants working on video activities across the=20 >> IETF=E2=80=99s technology areas. > > Given =E2=80=98operations=E2=80=99 is in the name, it seems like there = should be a=20 > bit more exploration of the topic in the description. You can, or anyone else is welcome to, send text :-> Leslie. > > --aaron > _______________________________________________ > GGIE mailing list > GGIE@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ggie --=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Daigle Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises ldaigle@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- --=_MailMate_256F41B1-A9EC-4692-AFC0-6691449CE84B_= Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for the thoughts =E2=80=94 a few follow ups, inlin= e:

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

Hi Leslie-

IANAVG (I am not a video guy), but the GGIE discussions h= ave been interesting to me. IMO the BoF charter is missing some motivati= on 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:

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 operato= rs, as well as considerable quantities of traffic on local and transit ne= tworks.

Is this a problem?

Do I need to switch the order of that sentence and the on= e below? Because I think the problem is expressed in the second sentence= =2E

Continued development of Internet-using technologies shou= ld be properly coordinated in order to ensure that the existing technolog= ies are well-utilized, and new ones are developed in sympathy with the In= ternet=E2=80=99s core protocols and design.

I=E2=80=99m not sure these are the most motivating goals.=

I think it=E2=80=99s kind of the key issue at hand: you = need to have a connection, before you can improve it. Right now, IMO, we= don=E2=80=99t even have a connection.

Off the top of my head, here are a few candidates. I=E2= =80=99m 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, reachabilit= y, and interoperation issues

I think these would be fine things to think about, as a s= econd turn of the crank. First turn: acknowledging there is a world of v= ideo technology development and deployment out there that is currently be= ing undertaken using, but completely independent of, the IETF=E2=80=99s w= ork. I=E2=80=99m typing this as I sit in one such video meeting, where = I=E2=80=99ve made a few impassioned interventions to urge people to come = play at the IETF, and I can=E2=80=99t tell them where to engage.

The purpose of this BoF is to highlight the many existing= video activities that are leveraging IETF protocol work, identify gaps i= n IETF work and/or areas of incompatibility with video technology develop= ment efforts being carried out elsewhere, and identify a core group of IE= TF participants working on video activities across the IETF=E2=80=99s tec= hnology areas.

Given =E2=80=98operations=E2=80=99 is in the name, it see= ms like there should be a bit more exploration of the topic in the descri= ption.

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

Leslie.

--aaron

GGIE mailing list
GGIE@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ggie

--

Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises

ldaigle@thinkingcat.com

--=_MailMate_256F41B1-A9EC-4692-AFC0-6691449CE84B_=--