Subject: [MEDIACTRL] Location!!!!

From: Chris Boulton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:25:42 +0100

Media Controllers,

I am assuming that an MRB MIGHT want to select a media server resource 
based on location?  This would involve an addition to the consumer 
interface so that the AS informs that MRB of its location AND an 
addition to the publishing interface informing the MRB of the MS 
location.  The MRB can then potentially (if required) select an MS based 
on appropriate location.  Is this something we should include in our 
analysis and discuss?

Chris.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:43:35 -0500

Hi, Chris,

Are you thinking civic location or geo-location?

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Chris Boulton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:51:00 +0100

I'm not thinking of a specific solution at the moment - just IF the 
group think its useful.  It would more than likely be 'geo' related.

Chris.

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> I am assuming that an MRB MIGHT want to select a media server 
>> resource based on location?  This would involve an addition to the 
>> consumer interface so that the AS informs that MRB of its location 
>> AND an addition to the publishing interface informing the MRB of the 
>> MS location.  The MRB can then potentially (if required) select an MS 
>> based on appropriate location.  Is this something we should include 
>> in our analysis and discuss?
>>
>> Chris.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.59/2165 - Release Date: 06/09/09 05:53:00
>
>

---

From: "MUNSON, GARY A, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:22:09 -0400

I believe this is useful and should be included. A use case example is
conferencing. You might have a conference where the bulk of the
participants are along the west coast of the US, so for QoS and network
efficiency reasons you would prefer to use the MS resources in Las Vegas
over those in London.

You can ask how an AS would know or make a best guess as to where the
bulk of the participants might be, but it seems feasible to me for an AS
to do that somehow.

So I'm also thinking geo information, not civic.

cheers,

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Chris Boulton
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 5:51 PM
To: Spencer Dawkins
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] Location!!!!

Chris.

> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.59/2165 - Release Date:
06/09/09 05:53:00

_______________________________________________
MEDIACTRL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mediactrl
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/mediactrl

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:48:29 -0400

Geo, civic, or Network-Geo, e.g., a MS in LV may be connectivity  
closer to a participant than SF which may be geographically closer.

Sounds like a bit of a can of worms...

I could see opaque identifiers, and let the providers hammer it out  
amongst themselves.

---

From: Chris Boulton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:59:58 +0100

Eric,

I certainly agree this could be a can of worms.  At this stage we are 
simply defining what might be useful in the publishing interface.  I 
think a location feature will be useful BUT we have to make sure its not 
over complicated OR attempting to be too specific.  I think its worth us 
taking to the next phase and discussing.

Chris.

Eric Burger wrote:
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.60/2166 - Release Date: 06/09/09 18:08:00
>
>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:10:05 -0500

I would be OK with defining a container that might contain either geographic 
location or civic location, reusing GeoPriv work, but don't think we have 
work to reuse on "network-geo" ... is there something we could point to?

Thanks,

Spencer

> simply defining what might be useful in the publishing interface.  I think 
> a location feature will be useful BUT we have to make sure its not over 
> complicated OR attempting to be too specific.  I think its worth us taking 
> to the next phase and discussing.
>
> Chris.
>
>
> Eric Burger wrote:
>> Geo, civic, or Network-Geo, e.g., a MS in LV may be connectivity closer 
>> to a participant than SF which may be geographically closer.
>>
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 
>> 270.12.60/2166 - Release Date: 06/09/09 18:08:00
>>
>>
>

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:34:34 -0500

Chris, 

I do think you want to be very cautious in this area - you only have to
look at the GEOPRIV WG and ECRIT WG to see that dealing with location is
far more complicated than it might look at first glance. Although, you
should be able to reuse some of the work there (e.g., HELD, etc.) and
certainly you don't necessarily have the accuracy issues for location
that ECRIT had.  But, you would really need to be consistent in terms of
formats for location, etc. Just saying you'll use "geo", as Eric
suggests, doesn't really provide any level of specificity or usability.
I would really suggest you put this topic as ffs unless you want to be
working on this for a while.  

Mary.  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Chris Boulton
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 2:00 PM
To: Eric Burger
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] Location!!!!

Eric,

Chris.

Eric Burger wrote:
>> I believe this is useful and should be included. A use case example 
>> is conferencing. You might have a conference where the bulk of the 
>> participants are along the west coast of the US, so for QoS and 
>> network efficiency reasons you would prefer to use the MS resources 
>> in Las Vegas over those in London.
>>

>> bulk of the participants might be, but it seems feasible to me for an

>> AS to do that somehow.
>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>> On Behalf Of Chris Boulton
>>>> AND an addition to the publishing interface informing the MRB of 
>>>> the MS location.  The MRB can then potentially (if required) select

>>>> an MS

---

From: Chris Boulton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:10:21 +0100

Mary Barnes wrote:
> [Chris] While I 100% agree and would certainly not entertain anything that is not consistent or indeed paletable through the IETF process it should be remembered that we are still at the discussion and requirements phase of the Publisher interface.  We are simply stating the question 'Would the location of a media server be useful when selecting a resrouce for an AS if, for example, more than 100 conference mix partipants are located in Brazil.  I believe that this type of information WOULD be useful in the MRB media server selection process.  If there is disagreement with that then it will be removed from the list of candidates.  Its way too early to be talking of solutions.

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:01:32 -0500

Yeah - that's true - the requirement itself seems quite innocuous and
the functionality would be quite useful. But, I also see location in a
different category than the other types of information the interface is
providing - the other information ISTM is more capabilities,
characteristics, current operational stats, etc. unless you're proposing
to lump it into the "generic media processing"/"application level
criteria" category (i.e., MRB-PUB-6), in which case you don't need a
separate element or requirement identified right now. 

Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Boulton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:10 PM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MEDIACTRL] Location!!!!

Mary Barnes wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I do think you want to be very cautious in this area - you only have 
> to look at the GEOPRIV WG and ECRIT WG to see that dealing with 
> location is far more complicated than it might look at first glance. 
> Although, you should be able to reuse some of the work there (e.g., 
> HELD, etc.) and certainly you don't necessarily have the accuracy 
> issues for location that ECRIT had.  But, you would really need to be 
> consistent in terms of formats for location, etc. Just saying you'll 
> use "geo", as Eric suggests, doesn't really provide any level of
specificity or usability.

> [Chris] While I 100% agree and would certainly not entertain anything
that is not consistent or indeed paletable through the IETF process it
should be remembered that we are still at the discussion and
requirements phase of the Publisher interface.  We are simply stating
the question 'Would the location of a media server be useful when
selecting a resrouce for an AS if, for example, more than 100 conference
mix partipants are located in Brazil.  I believe that this type of
information WOULD be useful in the MRB media server selection process.
If there is disagreement with that then it will be removed from the list
of candidates.  Its way too early to be talking of solutions.