Subject: [Mops] Calling all agenda items for IETF 107 MOPS

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:48:29 -0500

Hi,

As you’ll have seen — we’re planning to meet in Vancouver at IETF 
107.  We’ve tried to flag the key conflicts to avoid, but we’re a 
potential conflict for a lot of groups, and we’ll have to be patient 
with how things work out in scheduling.

The draft agenda below is still a little light.  There are a couple more 
areas we are exploring for input, not yet reflected on the agenda, but 
now would be a great time to float any particular issues you think would 
merit discussion time on the agenda, and let us know.

We had a good discussion about measuring latency of video delivered with 
QUIC last time.  What other issues are lurking in transport and 
application handling of video in development?

Leslie.

DRAFT

Media OPerationS (MOPS) WG

IETF 107 (Vancouver)
<Date — TBD>
<Location — TBD>
DRAFT Agenda

Intro

Agenda Bashing, Blue Sheets, etc,
[10min] chair(s)

Review of concrete work items:

[15min] Draft of edge network operational considerations for streaming 
media
Jake Holland
draft-jholland-mops-taxonomy->draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons

Updates from elsewhere

Updates from other work
[15min] Sanjay Mishra - anything from SVA Open Caching WG
[5min] Glenn Deen -- anything further re SMPTE
[10min] 5G and video <TBC>

General discussion of issues

Operational Issues Observed
Multicast and video — experiences from deploying inter domain 
multicast for video <TBC>
<looking for suggestions>

-- 

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

---

From: Matt Stock <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 12:02:27 -0500

Would there be interest in a discussion of specific delivery challenges and
work that has been done/is in progress in other WGs that could help address
them?  As an example, many years back the Alt-Svc header [
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7838] was developed, and there seems to be
some patchwork adoption across the ecosystem.  In the context of live or
live linear delivery, it could be a useful tool for traffic shifting, and
additional testing and engagement with implementers would be valuable.
There may be similar topics around HTTP/3 or QUIC.

Matt

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:48 PM Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As you’ll have seen — we’re planning to meet in Vancouver at IETF 107.
> We’ve tried to flag the key conflicts to avoid, but we’re a potential
> conflict for a lot of groups, and we’ll have to be patient with how things
> work out in scheduling.
>
> areas we are exploring for input, not yet reflected on the agenda, but now
> would be a great time to float any particular issues you think would merit
> discussion time on the agenda, and let us know.
>
> QUIC last time. What other issues are lurking in transport and application
> handling of video in development?
>
> Leslie.
>
> DRAFT
>
> Multicast and video — experiences from deploying inter domain multicast
> for video <TBC>
> ------------------------------
>
> Leslie Daigle
> Mops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mops
>

-- 
 <https://www.limelight.com>
Matt Stock* Principal Architect*
EXPERIENCE FIRST.
+1 716 949 0332 <+1+716+949+0332>
www.limelight.com
 <https://www.facebook.com/LimelightNetworks>[image:
LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/limelight-networks>[image:
Twitter] <https://twitter.com/llnw>

---

From: Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:27:43 +0000

Hey Matt,

On the topic of Alt-Svc, in the QUIC WG we have been using Alt-Svc for
HTTP/3 protocol switching and fallback. This has identified a few corner
cases and possible issues or concerns. I created a thread about this on the
HTTP WG mailing list [1] mainly framed on seeing if a BCP would make sense.

Widening the discussion to include people is something I'm interested in.

Cheers
Lucas

[1] - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2019OctDec/0184.html

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020, 17:02 Matt Stock, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Would there be interest in a discussion of specific delivery challenges
> and work that has been done/is in progress in other WGs that could help
> address them?  As an example, many years back the Alt-Svc header [

---

From: Matt Stock <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 12:44:46 -0500

Hi Lucas,

Yes, I watched the thread with interest and was going to follow up in
Vancouver.  :-)  I spent some time late December doing some investigation
related to my use case and feel like I am in a somewhat better position to
contribute.  In the context to MOPS, if there is interest in leveraging
that mechanism more generally it may help energize the BCP development.

Thanks,

Matt

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 12:27 PM Lucas Pardue <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> [1] -
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2019OctDec/0184.html
>
>
>
>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7838] was developed, and there seems to
>> be some patchwork adoption across the ecosystem.  In the context of live or