Skip to main content

Media Operations Use Case for an Extended Reality Application on Edge Computing Infrastructure
draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case-15

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, mops-chairs@ietf.org, mops@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, stewe@stewe.org
Subject: Document Action: 'Media Operations Use Case for an Extended Reality Application on Edge Computing Infrastructure' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case-15.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Media Operations Use Case for an Extended Reality Application on Edge
   Computing Infrastructure'
  (draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case-15.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Media OPerationS Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari, Robert Wilton and Éric Vyncke.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mops-ar-use-case/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document explores the issues involved in the use of Edge
   Computing resources to operationalize media use cases that involve
   Extended Reality (XR) applications.  In particular, this document
   discusses those applications that run on devices having different
   form factors (such as different physical sizes and shapes) and need
   Edge computing resources to mitigate the effect of problems such as a
   need to support interactive communication requiring low latency,
   limited battery power, and heat dissipation from those devices.  The
   intended audience for this document are network operators who are
   interested in providing edge computing resources to operationalize
   the requirements of such applications.  This document discusses the
   expected behavior of XR applications which can be used to manage the
   traffic.  In addition, the document discusses the service
   requirements of XR applications to be able to run on the network.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Stephan Wenger. The
   Responsible Area Director is Éric Vyncke.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note