Media OPerationS
charter-ietf-mops-01

[Ballot comment]
  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 seems to parse as "solicit input on inter-domain and within-domain networking",
which is a rather large scope.  I understand that the intent is scoped to media, but
the following text doesn't necessarily do so, from a grammatical perspective.

[Ballot comment]
Two small editorial comments:
1) "Internet- and Internet-protocol-delivered media"
Not sure I understand the difference here. I would assume that a media that is sent over the Internet would also use some Internet-protocol...?

2)"existing protocols and/or networks are challenged by these updated requirements."
"these" seems to be out of context now.

And two questions:

1) "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."
Where/how is the list of Working Group Items maintain? Are we talking here about working group documents, or milestones, or something else (in a wiki maybe)? And what does removing mean? That it cannot be discussed on the mailing list anymore? That is will not get any presentation time? Something else? Not sure how easy it will be to enforce these things or what that means in practice...

2) The charter only talks about documenting problems. Does that mean any kind of BCP-like work is out of scope?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for edits and discussion of my Block!

-------
Old 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.

[Ballot comment]
I like the idea of having such type of WG.
However, I find that publishing something like 4 or 5 RFCs is a lot (too much?) compared to the scope of the group.
In comparison LAKE doesn't even plan on publishing (as an RFC) requirements for the technology it will develop.

[Ballot comment]
I like the idea of having such type of WG.
However, I find that publishing something like 4 or 5 RFCs is a lot (too much?) compared to the scope of the group.
In comparison LAKE doesn't even plan on publishing requirements for the technology it will develop.

[Ballot comment]
** I share the concerns that Adam Roach raised.

** I don't see it in the charter text, but the IESG also talking about MOPS having an implicit dispatch function.  If this is the case, I recommend it being documented in the charter.

[Ballot 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.

[Ballot 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.

[Ballot comment]
"Where new protocols are needed, MOPS will identify appropriate venues for their development."

It doesn't seem to be this WGs call to decide where to do new work.  As mentioned later in the charter, existing areas/groups already have responsibility in related spaces.  It should then be up to the relevant WGs...ADs...the IESG...to determine where new work will take place (if at all).

Given the next to last paragraph...

  ... Media operational and deployment issues with specific protocols or technologies...

I think that the sentence above is not needed and may lead do confusion.

[Ballot comment]
I'm balloting "No Objection," but I have some pretty substantial
comments that I'd like to see given serious consideration before
we send the charter out for further review.

> 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.

I'd like to request some clarity about the anticipated output relics of those
determinations.  Are these to be mailing list discussions exclusively? Will
there be RFCs produced? If not, is there a plan to publish the conclusions in
a more discoverable location than the MOPS mailing list?

This same comment applies across bullet points 2 through 5, and I think it
needs to be treated on a bullet-by-bullet basis. In particular, some of these
enumerated goals (e.g., the first clause of item 3) sound like they intend to
produce the kind of support documents discussed at
.
I'd like to make sure the charter is clear about whether this working group
expects to request publication of such support documents as part of its
chartered work.

> 4/ Document operational requirements for media acquisition and delivery.

The term "acquisition" seems ambiguous here. A simple reading of this
would imply the process whereby one acquires media from its canonical
source (e.g., rights holders); but my previous experience with the
discussions that led to this charter give me the impression that this likely
has more to do with physical recording devices, like videocameras. The charter
should be clear about which of these senses of "acquisition" is meant.

> Media operational and deployment issues with specific protocols or technologies
> (such as Applications, Transport Protocols, Routing Protocols, DNS or Sub-IP
> Protocols) are the primary responsibility of the groups or areas responsible
> for those protocols or technologies.

The use of the word "primary" here is a bit worrisome, as it carries with it
an implication that MOPS may serve as a secondary custodian of them. I'm
sure that's not what's intended. I worry that this phrasing could be used
somewhere down the road in an attempt to defend the undertaking of work
that really should be done in a more appropriate area. I would suggest a
revision along the lines of:

"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."

> 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.

[Ballot block]
Probably  a "discuss discuss^Wblock", but:

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

How does this fit within the existing IETF/IAB liaison frameworks?

[Ballot comment]
  Internet, inter-domain and single domain networking. In this case, media is
  considered to include the transport of video, audio, objects and any
  combination thereof, possibly non-sequentially. The scope is media and media

What are "objects"?

[Ballot block]
In general, I'm not terribly happy with how this charter lays out specific work items (or doesn't).  It's very vague, and then when I look to the milestones I get more of an understanding.  On the one hand, this is OK, because we want this to be flexible, as a standing working group.  On the other hand, I would feel better with being somewhat more specific.  And I realize that this isn't terribly actionable, so I'm asking that we think about this, and I won't hold this "block" beyond our doing some reasonable consideration.

I do have two specific blocking comments, both of which should be easy to sort out:

  The premise of MOPS is that 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.

This sounds like a lot of fuzz without real substance.  Let’s try to tease out what its really saying and word it more accessibly.  At some level this seems to be saying that the premise of MOPS is that what the IETF does is good.  I’m sure there’s more meant here than that, but I don’t understand what.

  Future work items within this scope will be adopted by the Working Group only
  if there is a substantial expression of interest from the community and if the
  work clearly does not fit elsewhere in the IETF.

And only with a re-chartering, yes?  I don’t think we want the working group to be able to pick up *any* related work it chooses, just because it doesn’t fit elsewhere, right?

[Ballot comment]
And then there are a number of editorial things:

  MOPS’ focus is on
  identifying areas where existing protocols and/or networks are challenged

I suggest avoiding the issue of how to make a possessive of “MOPS” (I would use “MOPS’s”) by saying “The focus of MOPS is….”

  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, inter-domain and single domain networking.

Because the second list item has commas in it, you need the main list to use semicolons.  Otherwise it’s impossible to be sure one has parsed it accurately.

NEW
  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 single-domain networking.
END

  In this case, media is considered to include

“In this case” seems odd here.  I think you mean, “In the context of this charter,” or something like that.

  MOPS acts as a clearinghouse to
  identify appropriate venues for further protocol development, where necessary.

I’d rather be more direct in how this is worded (adjust as needed):

NEW
  Where new protocols are needed, MOPS will identify appropriate venues for
  their development.
END

Bullet 3 needs a period at the end.  And what “resulting innovations” are we talking about here?  It sounds like more fuzz, so can we be more specific?

  including global Internet, inter-domain and within-domain operations.

Earlier, you used “single-domain”, and here you use “within-domain”; please be consistent.

  There must be a continuous expression of interest for the Working Group to work
  on a particular work item.

I think you mean “continuing”.

Added charter milestone "Last-call document on Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) protocol reliance on IETF protocols (including explicit outreach to SMPTE)", due July 2020