Subject: [Mops] Mirja Kühlewind's Block on charter-ietf-mops-00-01: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:13:26 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-mops-00-01: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mops/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the IESG we discussed that this group has a different character than most of
the other groups we have so far and as such chartering this group has some
experimental character. My questions is how do we decide if having this group
is a success or when we want or need to close this group at any time in the
future? I would like to see something about this in the charter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't fully understand the goal of the milestones: documenting Streaming
Video Alliance (SVA)/Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) reliance
on IETF protocols.

The charter says:
"Solicit regular updates from other media technology developing
consortia/standards bodies working with IETF-developed protocols."

This sounds like the group would use presentation time and the slides in the
processing to get these updates and not necessarily write RFCs.

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:55:28 -0400

Hi,

Replying to this particular message, but collectively responding to all 
comments and discussion (in advance of today’s IESG call).

I’ve updated the charter, below, based on the items that seem to be 
agreed.

There are a couple of points still open:

1/ How this group continues (or stops):

[Mirja wrote:]
> future? I would like to see something about this in the charter.

[Adam wrote:]
>> There must be a continuing expression of interest for the Working 
>> Group to work
>> on a particular work item. If there is no longer sufficient interest 
>> in the
>> Working Group in a work item, the item may be removed from the list 
>> of Working
>> Group items.
>
> Some mention of the mechanics of how this continuing interest will be 
> determined
> would be welcome.

My understanding is that the WG exists at the pleasure of the IESG, so 
you can shut it down any time you think it isn’t useful.  That said, I 
appreciate that can be messy :^) and setting expectations would be 
helpful.

For whether we keep up with an item or not, traditionally we’ve had 
working group discussions about whether or not anyone still saw value in 
it or not.  Perhaps that ties in with the question of whether there is 
the believe that a particular item seems to have archival importance or 
not (now included in the charter text, below).  Is that enough?

Though, I don’t know what specific success metrics would be useful to 
answer Mirja’s question.

2/ Specific documents

[Mirja wrote:]
> processing to get these updates and not necessarily write RFCs.

FYI, both SVA and SMPTE have been presented — at the MOPS BoF in 
Montreal.

The point of pursuing these as documents is:     to keep the discussion 
going, as the dependencies evolve;  to (hopefully!) draw in more of the 
technical participants of those groups to IETF discussions (in MOPS and 
other relevant WGs); to get the information circulated more broadly (we 
do all still read the Internet-Draft announce list, right? ;-) ).

So, I think they are valid as work items.   I could agree that they 
might not need to be published as RFCs for archiving:  the updated 
charter text suggests that it would take an explicit discussion/decision 
of the working group to pursue that.

Updated charter text:

Media OPerationS WG Charter

Internet- and Internet-protocol-delivered media is widespread, 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. The focus of MOPS 
is on
identifying areas where existing protocols and/or networks are 
challenged by
these updated requirements.

MOPS will solicit input on operational issues and practices; existing 
and
proposed technologies related to the deployment, engineering, and 
operation
of media streaming and manipulation protocols and procedures in the 
global
Internet; and inter-domain and within-domain networking. In the context 
of
this working group, media is considered to include the transport of 
video,
audio, objects and any combination thereof, possibly non-sequentially. 
The
scope is media and media protocols’ interactions with the network, but 
not
the technologies of control protocols or media formats.

MOPS provides a venue for both video industry and Internet engineering
experts to engage in discussion of video technology’s requirements of
networking standards, as well as proposals for new uses of IP technology
in video. Where new protocols are needed, MOPS will help identify 
candidate
venues for their development.

The goals of MOPS include documenting existing protocol and operational 
issues
with media on the Internet, and identifying requirements for potential 
IETF work.
The general process of elaboration through documentation will be for 
issues to be
identified (on the mailing list) and presentations made at WG meetings.  
When topics
merit more coherent documentation, MOPS will adopt working group 
documents to
capture the information in Internet-Drafts.  If the material of the 
Internet-Draft
is deemed generally useful for archival purposes, the WG will seek 
publication of
the work items as RFCs.   At any point — from early discussion of 
topics, through
later documentation stages — MOPS may identify a more appropriate WG 
for the
matter and/or document, and dispatch it.

With that in mind, MOPS will:

1/ Solicit regular updates from other media technology developing
consortia/standards bodies working with IETF-developed protocols.

2/ Solicit input from network operators and users to identify 
operational
issues with media delivery in and across networks, and determine 
solutions or
workarounds to those issues.

3/ Solicit discussion and documentation of the issues and opportunities 
in
media acquisition and delivery, and of the resulting protocols and 
technologies
developed outside the IETF.

4/ Document operational requirements for media acquisition (for example, 
from
cameras and recording devices) and delivery.

5/ Develop operational information to aid in operation of media 
technologies in
the global Internet.

These activities should document media operational experience, including 
global
Internet, inter-domain and within-domain operations.

In all cases of working with other organizations mentioned above, MOPS 
will
work with existing liaison managers where the IETF has them, and 
informal
connections with other organizations otherwise. If new formal liaison
relationships are required, MOPS will work with the IAB to help 
establish them.

Media operational and deployment issues with specific protocols or 
technologies
(such as Applications, Transport Protocols, Routing Protocols, DNS or 
Sub-IP
Protocols) remain the responsibility of the groups or areas responsible
for those protocols or technologies.  However, the MOPS Working Group 
may
provide input to those areas/groups, as needed, and cooperate with those
areas/groups in reviewing solutions to MOPS operational and deployment 
problems.

There must be a continuing expression of interest for the Working Group 
to work
on a particular work item. If there is no longer sufficient interest in 
the
Working Group in a work item, the item may be removed from the list of 
Working
Group items.

On 16 Oct 2019, at 19:13, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker wrote:

> -- 
> Mops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops

-- 

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

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:18:40 +0000

Than you Leslie, I have updated the charter on the data tracker.

For info, I will be in a car during the formal telechat but we can talk about Mirja’s remaining DISCUSS if not cleared before ;-)

-éric

From: iesg <[email-masked]> on behalf of Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 13:55
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Updated charter text and comments Re: [Mops] Mirja Kühlewind's Block on charter-ietf-mops-00-01: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

Hi,

Replying to this particular message, but collectively responding to all comments and discussion (in advance of today’s IESG call).

I’ve updated the charter, below, based on the items that seem to be agreed.

[Mirja wrote:]

[Adam wrote:]

There must be a continuing expression of interest for the Working Group to work
on a particular work item. If there is no longer sufficient interest in the
Working Group in a work item, the item may be removed from the list of Working
Group items.

Some mention of the mechanics of how this continuing interest will be determined
would be welcome.

My understanding is that the WG exists at the pleasure of the IESG, so you can shut it down any time you think it isn’t useful. That said, I appreciate that can be messy :^) and setting expectations would be helpful.

For whether we keep up with an item or not, traditionally we’ve had working group discussions about whether or not anyone still saw value in it or not. Perhaps that ties in with the question of whether there is the believe that a particular item seems to have archival importance or not (now included in the charter text, below). Is that enough?

Though, I don’t know what specific success metrics would be useful to answer Mirja’s question.

2/ Specific documents

[Mirja wrote:]

The charter says:

FYI, both SVA and SMPTE have been presented — at the MOPS BoF in Montreal.

The point of pursuing these as documents is: to keep the discussion going, as the dependencies evolve; to (hopefully!) draw in more of the technical participants of those groups to IETF discussions (in MOPS and other relevant WGs); to get the information circulated more broadly (we do all still read the Internet-Draft announce list, right? ;-) ).

So, I think they are valid as work items. I could agree that they might not need to be published as RFCs for archiving: the updated charter text suggests that it would take an explicit discussion/decision of the working group to pursue that.

Updated charter text:

Internet- and Internet-protocol-delivered media is widespread, 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. The focus of MOPS is on
identifying areas where existing protocols and/or networks are challenged by
these updated requirements.

MOPS will solicit input on operational issues and practices; existing and
proposed technologies related to the deployment, engineering, and operation
of media streaming and manipulation protocols and procedures in the global
Internet; and inter-domain and within-domain networking. In the context of
this working group, media is considered to include the transport of video,
audio, objects and any combination thereof, possibly non-sequentially. The
scope is media and media protocols’ interactions with the network, but not
the technologies of control protocols or media formats.

in video. Where new protocols are needed, MOPS will help identify candidate

The goals of MOPS include documenting existing protocol and operational issues
with media on the Internet, and identifying requirements for potential IETF work.
The general process of elaboration through documentation will be for issues to be
identified (on the mailing list) and presentations made at WG meetings. When topics
merit more coherent documentation, MOPS will adopt working group documents to
capture the information in Internet-Drafts. If the material of the Internet-Draft
is deemed generally useful for archival purposes, the WG will seek publication of
the work items as RFCs. At any point — from early discussion of topics, through
later documentation stages — MOPS may identify a more appropriate WG for the
matter and/or document, and dispatch it.

2/ Solicit input from network operators and users to identify operational
issues with media delivery in and across networks, and determine solutions or
workarounds to those issues.

3/ Solicit discussion and documentation of the issues and opportunities in
media acquisition and delivery, and of the resulting protocols and technologies
developed outside the IETF.

4/ Document operational requirements for media acquisition (for example, from
cameras and recording devices) and delivery.

5/ Develop operational information to aid in operation of media technologies in
the global Internet.

These activities should document media operational experience, including global
Internet, inter-domain and within-domain operations.

In all cases of working with other organizations mentioned above, MOPS will
work with existing liaison managers where the IETF has them, and informal
connections with other organizations otherwise. If new formal liaison
relationships are required, MOPS will work with the IAB to help establish them.

Media operational and deployment issues with specific protocols or technologies
(such as Applications, Transport Protocols, Routing Protocols, DNS or Sub-IP
Protocols) remain the responsibility of the groups or areas responsible
for those protocols or technologies. However, the MOPS Working Group may
provide input to those areas/groups, as needed, and cooperate with those
areas/groups in reviewing solutions to MOPS operational and deployment problems.

There must be a continuing expression of interest for the Working Group to work
on a particular work item. If there is no longer sufficient interest in the
Working Group in a work item, the item may be removed from the list of Working
Group items.

The charter says:

--

________________________________

Leslie Daigle

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:06:14 +0000

Mirja and other,

Leslie has worked on a revised charter https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mops/ including AFAIK all issues raised during the review and yesterday telechat. I have also added a milestone in 2 year for the IESG to revisit the charter of MOPS and decide to recharter, continue or close the WG.

Mirja, if the next text fixes your BLOCK, then would you mind clearing it ?

Thank you all for your assistance during this chartering of a very special WG ;)

-éric

On 17/10/2019, 01:13, "Mops on behalf of Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    

    

    
    The charter says:

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:43:39 -0700

Thanks! Done.

> On 18. Oct 2019, at 03:06, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Mirja and other,
>