Subject: [clue] Updates to CLUE information transport criteria from May 22 DT meeting

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:55:53 -0500

Hi all,

This is a summary of updates proposed during today's design team
meeting, based on Christer's original proposal and Roni's suggested
additions:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clue/current/msg01433.html

Note, this a very important thread of discussion as we really need
someone to step forward to take on detailing the data model and
evaluate each of the data elements against this criteria:

1) Whether signaling intermediaries (e.g. SBGs) need to have access to
 the information - i.e.. whether information is relevant to routing
decisions, policies as to how to route, etc.

 -- Whether the CLUE information and the media description (SDP) need
to be in the same message.

-- Whether the CLUE information and the media description (SDP) need
to use the same transport path.

 2) The expected size of the information to be sent (i.e., estimate of bytes)

 3) The expected frequency of the information to be sent (i.e., 3
categories, per earlier discussion...)

 4) Whether the information is sent during session establishment, mid-
session and/or session termination.

-- Information for SIP session establishment

-- Information about CLUE, information about media, information to
establish media

 5) What delay is acceptable for the information (i.e., CLUE data element)

6) Whether the information is sent as a notification, or whether some
kind of response is needed

-- Does information need to be carried in a request and response or

-- is it just necessary to be communicated one way

 7) Whether the information needs to be delivered reliably (either
using  a reliable transport mechanism, and/or some kind of
higher-level  acknowledgement)

8) Whether the information is needed by a non-CLUE entity in order to
participate in a CLUE conference

-- Not sure the intent here. Christer, can you please clarify what you
mean by non-CLUE.  Also, are you talking about some sort of mapping or
is this a more theoretical question?

Thanks,
Mary.

---

From: "Allyn Romanow (allyn)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:38:01 -0700

I thought Andy had agreed to do the data model-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Mary Barnes
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 9:56 AM
> To: CLUE
> Subject: [clue] Updates to CLUE information transport criteria from May
> 22DT meeting
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> clue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 22:11:29 +0200

Hi Mary,

My intention is to start mapping the criterias to the data model.

However, I'd first like us to have an understanding/agreement on what the criterias are, and that's the reason I asked people to provide input on the list.

Regards,

Christer

________________________________________
From: Mary Barnes [[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 7:55 PM
To: CLUE
Cc: Christer Holmberg; Paul Kyzivat
Subject: Updates to CLUE information transport criteria from May 22 DT meeting

Hi all,

Thanks,
Mary.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:58:54 -0500

That would be great. The reason we discussed it on the call is that
you had only received a couple responses on the mailing list.  Per
Allyn's response, it would be good if you could work with Andy on
this, as well.

If you and others that weren't at the meeting could please review the
additions and clarifications that the folks on the call discussed,
that would be extremely helpful.

Also, we weren't clear on the intent of the last item (#8), so if you
could please clarify that would be extremely helpful.

Thanks,
Mary.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 11:48:43 -0500

Per the thread on timing:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clue/current/msg01346.html
I have incorporated what I think were agreed in terms of the 3
categorizations that Marshall put forth in the item below.  We would
need to wordsmith the text to be specific to CLUE but I think the
references to things like IPTV provide a useful
reference/rationalization for the values.

Ideally, if folks can provide any feedback no later than noon on
Friday, May 25th, the folks doing the data model will have something
to work from.

Thanks,
Mary.

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Mary Barnes
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>  3) The expected frequency of the information to be sent:
   -- 30 msec. This is a video frame. Nothing of significance can
happen faster, and some things, such as video switching, ideally would
only take one frame.
   -- 200 msec. This was always viewed as the ideal IPTV channel change
time (and a lot of work was done on IGMP to try and get there). This
also happens to be a rough upper bound on non-noticeable RTTs, and so
is a rough  limit on how fast you can do things if those things
require some sort of RT handshake / authorization  / acknowledgement.
It would be good to do many CLUE config changes in this
time range - experience is that users will tolerate 200 msec of
interruption or dead time, if something major changes.
  -- many seconds. Setting up a conference, changing basic conference
parameters, etc., can take many seconds. Rebooting equipment can take
many seconds.

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:15:51 +1000

Hello,

I'm a little bit puzzled what the aim of the list/exercise is. 
Christer's original list appeared to be for determining the criteria to 
select a transport for CLUE. The list below seems now to be on 
individual data elements? Are we considering only CLUE data elements 
which I would assume for a CLUE data model? or is the scope broader? A 
broader scope appears to be suggested by mentioning information for SIP 
establishment, SDP etc.

Some specific comments below:

The description of 3) on the expected frequency seems to be mixing how 
often something will be sent and expected response time based on 
signalling. Item 5) covers "delay". Should this be merged with 3) or 
does the description of 3) need to be revised to remove the delay aspect?

It would be good to get more information on 8). Are we talking about a 
heterogeneous use case or a legacy use case? or?

Regards, Christian

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:48:10 +0200

Hi,

At least my intention has been to cover all information that is going to be exchanged.

Regards,

Christer

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Christian Groves [[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:15 AM
To: CLUE
Subject: Re: [clue] Updates to CLUE information transport criteria from May 22 DT meeting

Hello,

Regards, Christian

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:08:47 -0500

Yes, that was the intent - to characterize the requirements for the
information to be exchanged. Then we can then match those with a
signaling solution(s) that satisfy the criteria for each of the
information elements that need to be exchanged.

Mary.

---

From: Roni even <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 18:57:01 +0000

Hi,
This is probably my bad English but I understood the subject as written. I will look again at the list including the topics I had since it looks to me that they are not related to the information but more to the transport.

I think that the major issue here is that we need to say what messages are used to carry the information is it two or three messages. This will have a major impact on the transport since if we need three messages starting with a consumer capabilities this does not work well with offer answer.

Roni

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] on behalf of Mary Barnes [[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 18:08
To: Christer Holmberg
Cc: CLUE
Subject: Re: [clue] Updates to CLUE information transport criteria from May 22 DT meeting

Mary.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 14:11:12 -0500

It's a chicken/egg thing.  But, I think whether there are two or three
messages is slightly orthogonal.  I can see that once we actually have
a data model and identify the criteria required to transport the
information to achieve the desired functionality that it will be
easier to decide what transport mechanism is appropriate.  Some of
this was already considered in this draft:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-romanow-clue-sdp-usage-01.txt

Mary.

---

From: Roni even <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 21:09:41 +0000

Mary,
I am sorry but this is not a chicken and egg thing. 

This is a basic CLUE framework issue. If the view is that the provider will send advertisements based on the consumer capabilities or whether he will send advertisements based on his capabilities is a fundamental question that will have a major influence on the transport type.
Roni

________________________________________
From: Mary Barnes [[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 22:11
To: Roni even
Cc: Christer Holmberg; CLUE
Subject: Re: [clue] Updates to CLUE information transport criteria from May 22 DT meeting

Mary.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 19:05:26 -0400

Roni,

IMO there has been a basic premise from the beginning that there is a 
three message exchange - capabilities/advertisement/selection. But there 
has been little investigation of the capabilities part, and so I sense 
some expect that the capabilities will be abandoned. We need to figure 
that out.

There has also been some suggestion that we may need multiple transport 
mechanisms with differing characteristics - timing, size limitations, 
etc. That may not exactly fit the capabilities/advertisement/selection 
model well.

And there is the recognition that SDP O/A must be part of the picture. 
But it also doesn't fit the capabilities/advertisement/selection model 
very well.

We need to sort all of that out and reach some conclusion. The data 
model, and the classification of the characteristics of the data 
elements is intended to shed further light, to help get to a conclusion.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 5/24/12 5:09 PM, Roni even wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Roni even<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>> Hi,

---

From: Roni even <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 23:09:14 +0000

Hi Paul,
Some of the discussion going on the capture set entries claim that the advertisement will include the capture scene entries relevant to the consumer. If this is the case than the provider need to know more about the consumer.

Roni

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] on behalf of Paul Kyzivat [[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 2:05
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [clue] Updates to CLUE information transport criteria from May 22 DT meeting

Roni,

        Thanks,
        Paul

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 09:21:07 +1000

Hello Christer,

Cover all the information in the data model or cover all the information 
against the criteria?

Also do you have any information on 8 (see my question below)?

Regards, Christian