Subject: [dispatch] Summary notes from Dispatch 93

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:36:38 +0200

Hi all,

Here are my summary notes from the meeting this morning.

Jean

------------------------------------------------------------------

Dispatch 93
2015-07-22
09:00-11:30 Congress Hall III

Status and agenda bash ____________________________________________
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dispatch-3.pdf
Presenters: Mary Barnes, Cullen Jennings

Note Taker: Jean Mahoney
Jabber Relay: Ted Hardy

Change to agenda - ICE WG to be presented first.

Proposed ICE WG ___________________________________________________
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dispatch-4.pdf
Presenter: Pal-Erick Martinsen

Flemming Andreasen, as MMUSIC chair, felt there were a lot of 
advantages, but wanted to clarify that there would be both core ICE and 
ICE SDP work. Ben Campbell, as AD, felt that ICE-specific SDP could be 
handled on a case-by-case basis, like the payload WG does. Roland felt 
that the charter may need more text regarding the interactions with 
other working groups, which should be discussed on the ICE mailing list. 
No one in the meeting room was opposed to the formation of the working 
group.

ACTIONs: Send charter to the dispatch mailing list. Discuss interactions 
with other working groups on the ICE mailing list.

FFV1 and Matroska ________________________________________________
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dispatch-6.pdf
Presenter:  Tessa Fallon, Emmanuel
References:
- FFV1 Video Specification: https://mediaarea.net/temp/ffv1.html
- Github: http://matroska.org/technical/specs/index.html

Robert Sparks and Roni Even asked what was Internet-specific about this 
work. Jerome Martinez pointed out that Matroska was used with VP8, VP9 
and WebM. Steve Lhome said that Matroska was designed for streaming in 
networks and that Opus could be stored in Matroska for streaming. 
Matroska is supported in Chrome, Firefox and MS Edge.

Jerome Martinez said that, while the main purpose of Matroska was 
storage, it could be used for transport and that they were looking for 
transparency, open source and openness for their specification. They 
didn't take it to SMPTE because it's paywalled.

Tessa said that although the specifications are already available and 
the work is complete, the specifications would benefit from the IETF 
review process. Ben Campbell asked if it was ok if IETF take over change 
control, and Tessa said that was understood. Ted Hardy said that the 
community would need to participate in the IETF or the effort would 
fail. Tessa said that she hoped the community and IETF would come 
together. Steve Lhome, an original author of Matroska, said he would 
continue to participate where ever the work was going to happen.

Cullen and Dave Rice pointed out the needs for lossless video. Cullen 
felt the specifications didn't support interoperability as they were 
currently written, but didn't see the effort as a huge leap for the IETF.

Steve Bozko and ??? voiced concerns about the ongoing maintenance 
aspects of the work.

By raising hands, two people at the meeting showed interest in 
contributing. 8-10 people indicated that they were willing to review 
documents.

Richard Barnes pointed out that netvc people were not in the room and 
that they may be interested.

ACTION: Dispatch chairs to take the discussion to the list, contact the 
netvc list.

GeoJSON ________________________________________________________
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dispatch-5.pdf
Presenter: Sean Gillies
Charter: https://github.com/geojson/draft-geojson/blob/master/charter.md
Document: draft-butler-geojson

There was a discussion about whether GeoJSON was Location Information or 
Location Object, and whether GeoJSON would carry a Location Object or 
whether a Location Object would carry GeoJSON.

Privacy considerations were also discussed: unlike geopriv, GeoJSON can 
describe a large area with multiple points with in it. Privacy 
considerations would be different for collections of points than for a 
single point.

Roger Marshall voiced support for this work.

A show of hands indicated that a few people would sign up for a mailing 
list, read documents and provide comments. If the work was taken on, it 
would go to a new working group; geopriv would not be reopened.

ACTION: Post the question of starting a new working group on the 
dispatch mailing list and geopriv mailing list, which is still open.

Location source parameter _______________________________________
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dispatch-0.pdf
Presenter: Andrew Hutton
Document: draft-winterbottom-dispatch-locparam-00

Conrad said that this was required to satisfy safety regulations. It was 
discussed whether this parameter would ever be used for non-emergency 
situations. Andy said that once specified, it could be, but that the 
emergency situation was the only use case he knew of. Alissa Cooper 
asked that the document clearly identify the use cases that it would be 
supporting.

ACTION: Authors to update the draft with supported use cases.

Via header field parm for received realm _________________________
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dispatch-1.pdf
Presenter: Christer Holmberg
Document: draft-holmberg-dispatch-received-realm-00

Adam Roach, as sipcore chair, explained that this draft did not fall 
under sipcore's narrow charter. Ben Campbell, as AD, said that the 
document could be AD-sponsored, but it needed a security review first.

ACTIONs: Adam Roach to become document shepherd. RAI security advisor to 
review. Ben to discuss with security advisor if it can be AD-sponsored. 
Draft can be discussed on the SIPCORE mailing list.

SLIM charter _________________________________________________
Presentation: 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dispatch-2.pdf
Presenter: Randell Gellens
Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/slim/charter/

The charter wording around routing was discussed. People felt that since 
routing would probably be handled by the working group at some point, 
the charter should capture it now rather than go through a re-chartering 
process later.

ACTIONs: Henning Schulzrinne to submit a draft usable for common use 
cases based on his experience with caller prefs. Discuss charter wording 
on the SLIM mailing list.

Other items __________________________________________________

Ted Hardy announced the QUIC protocol bar bof this evening in Congress I.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:26:41 -0500

Thanks Jean!  As always, awesome notes.

Mary.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:36 AM, A. Jean Mahoney <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Flemming Andreasen, as MMUSIC chair, felt there were a lot of advantages,
> but wanted to clarify that there would be both core ICE and ICE SDP work.
> Ben Campbell, as AD, felt that ICE-specific SDP could be handled on a
> case-by-case basis, like the payload WG does. Roland felt that the charter
> may need more text regarding the interactions with other working groups,
> which should be discussed on the ICE mailing list. No one in the meeting
> room was opposed to the formation of the working group.
>
> work. Jerome Martinez pointed out that Matroska was used with VP8, VP9 and
> WebM. Steve Lhome said that Matroska was designed for streaming in networks
> and that Opus could be stored in Matroska for streaming. Matroska is
> supported in Chrome, Firefox and MS Edge.
>
> Jerome Martinez said that, while the main purpose of Matroska was storage,
> it could be used for transport and that they were looking for transparency,
> open source and openness for their specification. They didn't take it to
> SMPTE because it's paywalled.
>
> Tessa said that although the specifications are already available and the
> work is complete, the specifications would benefit from the IETF review
> process. Ben Campbell asked if it was ok if IETF take over change control,
> and Tessa said that was understood. Ted Hardy said that the community would
> need to participate in the IETF or the effort would fail. Tessa said that
> she hoped the community and IETF would come together. Steve Lhome, an
> original author of Matroska, said he would continue to participate where
> ever the work was going to happen.
>
> Cullen and Dave Rice pointed out the needs for lossless video. Cullen felt
> the specifications didn't support interoperability as they were currently
> written, but didn't see the effort as a huge leap for the IETF.
>
> Steve Bozko and ??? voiced concerns about the ongoing maintenance aspects
> of the work.
>
> Richard Barnes pointed out that netvc people were not in the room and that
> they may be interested.
>
> ACTION: Post the question of starting a new working group on the dispatch
> mailing list and geopriv mailing list, which is still open.
>
>
>
> emergency situation was the only use case he knew of. Alissa Cooper asked
> that the document clearly identify the use cases that it would be
> supporting.
>
> Adam Roach, as sipcore chair, explained that this draft did not fall under
> sipcore's narrow charter. Ben Campbell, as AD, said that the document could
> be AD-sponsored, but it needed a security review first.
>
> routing would probably be handled by the working group at some point, the
> charter should capture it now rather than go through a re-chartering
> process later.
>
> ACTIONs: Henning Schulzrinne to submit a draft usable for common use cases
> based on his experience with caller prefs. Discuss charter wording on the
> SLIM mailing list.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>