Subject: [GGIE] IAB shepherd appointed

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:07:35 -0500

Hi there,

As part of the lead-up to BoFs at IETF meetings, the IESG sometimes
asks the IAB for a volunteer to be a shepherd for the BoF.  The
shepherd's job is described in
https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2012-2/iab-member-roles-in-evaluating-new-work-proposals/.
I am the lucky winner.

I've been looking at the documents and the list archives.  I must say
that I'm a little concerned about the sparse discussion of the topic,
though I'm glad some people seem to think it will be helpful.

One thing I'm a little worried about in the BoF proposal is how
quickly it moves from motivation to "here is the answer".  I suspect
I'd feel a little more comfortable with this if there was a better
list of unsolved problems in any proposal, or even just a way to
generate such a list.  Otherwise, this just feels like an effort to
standardize something that's already baked.

Anyway, I am available and willing to help with the BoF preparation if
people would like.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:07:12 -0500

Andrew,

For my part, let me say thanks for volunteering :-)

WRT your chief concern, I think it’s fair to say that, in order of 
priority, we have:

1/ a desire to address the video-overloading-[parts-of]-the-network 
problem
2/ a belief that there are useful things that can be done to look at 
video as application slightly differently, and making use of the network 
more completely
3/ a set of documents that outline a proposal for how to do some of that 
— documents are easier to discuss than hand-waving concepts

Looking forward to more discussion.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 10 Feb 2017, at 15:07, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

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

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:13:29 -0500

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 04:07:12PM -0500, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>1/ a desire to address the video-overloading-[parts-of]-the-network problem

This part I get.

> 2/ a belief that there are useful things that can be done to look at video
> as application slightly differently, and making use of the network more
> completely

This part I sort of get, but I'm not totally sold that
draft-deen-daigle-ggie-02 lays that out in a way I understand quite
what's different and not.  §6 ought to be doing that, but it doesn't
seem to me to have set questions that are precise enough.  And indeed,
some of the bits don't seem that unusual to video.  In particular,
neither alternate-source nor alternate-format is really a video
problem as such.

> 3/ a set of documents that outline a proposal for how to do some of that —
> documents are easier to discuss than hand-waving concepts

Well, yes, but these also jump to the solution without (2), above.

I think scoping the (2) part of this so that the nature of the work is
somewhat clearer will be a necessary condition for bof success.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 00:56:43 +0000

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for volunteering to help with this, your help is most welcome.

Let me say that the current proposals are not a baked solution that we are
hoping to standardize.

The current IDs came about in response to questions on what practical work
areas would be touched and to illustrate by example the sort of solutions
that would fall into the open ended and abstract idea ³We need to find
ways for the network and video to work more efficiently together².
After a lot of conversations it became clear that people could much better
grasp the discussion if we could offer some practical hard examples -
hence the IDs we wrote and the demo we built to help educate others so
that we could then open the discussion to ³What can be done to make the
way Video used the network to be more efficient?²     Basically, they
served to ground the problem in practical terms related the IETF.

The intent is to get ideas and submissions from others as we¹ve got a
complex problem that isn¹t going to be solved with the seeds we¹ve
submitted. I know from discussion that others have some creative ideas and
approaches and I would expect them to submit drafts once there was a group
to submit to.  Currently we lack a home to submit those drafts to, and to
get them discussed.

In our discussions we¹ve respected the territory of other SDOs such as the
work done by MPEG & SMPTE on video encoding and packaging of video data
(MPEG-DASH and Mezzanine files).  We¹ve treated those as fixed entities
and explored network level extensions/uses that could work with them.
For example - the mapping of IPv6 network blocks onto MPEG-DASH packaging
of video chunks.  That seemed to be the right balance to us to keep the
questions focused on things that we could actually touch and not enter
into turf wars. Where the line of IN versus OUT of scope is drawn is maybe
something to be discussed.  I have my views, but others maybe able to make
good cases for other demarcations.

Where the other SDOs don¹t typically venture into is the network and when
they do it¹s typically viewed as a system of unlimited bandwidth, zero
latency, and unlimited IPv4 addresses.  The IETF brings a more practical
view of the realities (did I just use IETF and reality in the same
sentence?) of the network and the ability to creatively extend the network
services so as to interact with Video in a constructive and more efficient
way.  

I think what I¹m trying to say is that there are two sets of experts and
efforts in the mix here:   The video experts outside of IETF who are
improving Internet video at the video application data layer (codecs,
packaging, players), and the network experts inside the IETF who can
improve it at the network layer.   The intent is to create a group in the
IETF where the later set can submit drafts, share ideas, review proposals,
and eventually standardize for use by the video data layer people the best
of the network video layer ideas that emerge.

-glenn

On 2/10/17, 12:07 PM, "GGIE on behalf of Andrew Sullivan"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>https://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence-reports-documents/2012-2/iab-
>member-roles-in-evaluating-new-work-proposals/.
>I am the lucky winner.
>

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:18:46 -0500

Last June, I did this talk at a NIST workshop:

http://web.thinkingcat.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/20160601-GGIE-NIST-NDN.pdf

I think it gets at some of the points in more detail (certainly, more 
detail than section 6 of the I-D).  I realize it’s not an IETF 
document, but if there’s material there that you think would be 
helpful in scoping the discussion, we can certainly work on an update to 
the I-D.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 10 Feb 2017, at 16:13, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

>> video