Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Charter

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:05:51 -0800

This thursday, I am going to put the Charter on the agenda for the  
IESG call on Jan 11. After this it will probably go out for IETF wide  
review. There is only one area I still have concern with it and it is  
about the media  broker stuff. It wold be nice if we could sort this  
out before this thursday but if we don't, I am putting it on the  
agenda with the current wording and we can sort it out during the  
IETF wide review period.

The text I am taking about is:

         4. Means for locating, and possibly establishing sessions  
to, media servers with appropriate resources at the request of  
clients. By appropriate, we mean the characteristics of a given media  
server required or desired for handling a given request and the  
overall efficient use of a pool of media servers.

I have no problem with a server reporting it capabilities, like it  
can do transcoding from 729 to GSM or it is supports some PDU.  I  
have no problem with clients somehow finding a list of server names  
they talk to or being configured with this list. The problem I worry  
about getting into is a complex optimal server usage question like  
where an application wants to be able to ask some service "please  
tell me a server that can be reserved to do 100 channels of G.729  
conferencing and can also can do 10 channels of H.264 video mixing  
with the following resolution of video".  Having a service that can  
figure out what is the best server to meet the needs of this request  
is a thorny problem - particularly if one allows for reservations. Do  
you pick the least loaded server? If you have two servers that could  
do it but only one of them has speech rec do you use the one that  
does not have speech rec since you might want to keep that server  
clear for applications that need the speech rec?

So, I'm open to where we want to draw the line on or the initial work  
- somewhere between minimal capabilities descriptions and advanced  
reservations for specific services. I lean strongly towards the  
simple end of this line. The "overall efficient use of a pool of  
media servers" scares me a little bit. If we could find some  
agreement on what level of complexity we want to tackle, then get  
some text to match that, it would make me happy :-)

PS - the version of the charter I have is attached - if this does not  
look like the latest version, whack me before I send it to the IESG :-)
_______________________________________________
MEDIACTRL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl

---

From: "Dolly, Martin C, ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:45:19 -0600

Cullen,

>From a large service provider perspective, the MRB(s) would know the
capabilities of the MS's in advance, the MRB(s) via an operational
interface would know the status of the MS(s) resources, so limiting the
text to is fine:  

I have no problem with a server reporting it capabilities, like it  
can do transcoding from 729 to GSM or it is supports some PDU.  I  
have no problem with clients somehow finding a list of server names  
they talk to or being configured with this list. 

Cheers,

Martin

---

From: "Dave Burke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:25:23 -0000

I agree. I'd simply remove that last clause to leave:

Means for locating, and possibly establishing sessions
to, media servers with appropriate resources at the request of
clients. By appropriate, we mean the characteristics of a given media
 server required or desired for handling a given request.

Dave

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>
To: "Media Ctrl" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 10:05 PM
Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Charter

> look like the latest version, whack me before I send it to the IESG :-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------