Subject: [clue] Document Action: 'Use Cases for Telepresence Multi-streams' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-use-cases-09.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 15:16:35 -0800

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Use Cases for Telepresence Multi-streams'
  (draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-use-cases-09.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the ControLling mUltiple streams for
tElepresence Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Richard Barnes.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-use-cases/

        Technical Summary:

This document describes the most typical and important use cases 
for sending multiple streams in a telepresence conference. Telepresence conferencing 
systems seek to create an environment that gives non 
co-located users or user groups a feeling of co-located presence through multimedia 
communication including at least audio and video signals of high fidelity.  
A number of techniques for handling audio and video streams are 
used to create this experience.  When these techniques are not similar, 
interoperability between different systems is difficult at best, 
and often not possible.  Conveying information about the relationships   
between multiple streams of media would allow senders and receivers
to make choices to allow telepresence systems to interwork.  
  
        Working Group Summary:
        Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
        it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
        about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
        document?
  
This document is a product of the CLUE WG.  There was no controversy 
with regards to adopting this document as a WG document.  The document has been 
thoroughly reviewed by the CLUE WG participants and is deemed ready 
for publication. 

         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?

The intent of this document is to highlight key uses cases that are 
supported in current telepresence systems.  The objective within the CLUE 
WG is to develop protocols that will support those use cases to enable
more widespread interoperability of telepresence systems.   It should also 
be noted that a number of these use cases were originally documented 
in the IMTC Telepresence Activity Group, that is awaiting the completion 
of the CLUE protocol development to progress the interoperability of 
telepresence systems.  The IMTC chose to bring their original requirements 
and use cases as input to the work in the IETF, recognizing IETF 
as the SDO that should be doing the standards development.  There are a 
number of key vendors in the telepresence industry that plan to 
implement the CLUE WG series of specifications.

Lennard Xiao reviewed the document and suggested (and provided some text) 
for the telemedicine use case, which is an important use case 
for current telepresence systems.  Christian Groves has carefully reviewed
several versions of this WG document. 

         Personnel
         Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
         Director?

Mary Barnes (CLUE WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.  
Gonzalo Camarillo is the Responsible AD.