[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-use-cases-07
Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it> Thu, 26 September 2013 09:28 UTC
Return-Path: <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF9E21F9AA4; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UDagFYw1fNs0; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [193.206.158.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0545C21F9B8A; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: internal info suppressed
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:27:46 +0200
From: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
X-X-Sender: claudio@vpnclnt04.dir.garr.it
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-use-cases.all@tools.ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1309261036380.56750@vpnclnt04.dir.garr.it>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-2000082971-1380187667=:56750"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=garr.it; s=cyrus; t=1380187670; bh=GFRBnQmZ2Lb7bdRGIoRruWggD2nmbpU0kic8o1m8ACM=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject; b=UCDjFeecMCMmgHz2/cs5vHHh8xp9m2OPM2aDbHYAeDAzi7Anp0Suf5cEOhKICsDzt DuJ95W1sNGb3NrfF8433cHonKRO+F+lX7GdpcUqERrFwAUZ6s9hzymc3WaFREQrP+M TZetT7MSkZY9ya1sMR0SBBg9nT0l6GYIs0XRY7PI=
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-use-cases-07
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:28:12 -0000
Hello all, I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-clue-telepresence-use-cases-07 Title: Use Cases for Telepresence Multi-streams Reviewer: Claudio Allocchio Review Date: Sep 26th 2013 IETF Last Call Date: Sep 26th 2013 IESG Telechat Date: Not known Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC. However it needs some editing and maybe a re-ordering of some sections. Also a more detailed descprition of the "audio scenario" in all sections is worth an efort before publication. Major issues: none. Minor issues: General comment: most of the documet focuses a lot on the video aspect of telepresence, and only is some section the "audio presence" is quickly described as possible stereo, or surround or multible monophonic channels. I think the audio aspect is as important as the video one in making participatns feel the telepresence effect, thus each section should add a carful audio setup scenario as detailed as the video on. The voice of a partiipants must come from where his/her virtual image is. There is a text repetition in Introduction and in section 2 (page 5): The basic features that give telepresence its distinctive characteristics are implemented in disparate ways in different systems. Currently Telepresence systems from diverse vendors interoperate to some extent, but this is not supported in a standards based fashion. Interworking requires that translation and transcoding devices be included in the architecture. Such devices increase latency, reducing the quality of interpersonal interaction. Use of these devices is often not automatic; it frequently requires substantial manual configuration and a detailed understanding of the nature of underlying audio and video streams. This state of affairs is not acceptable for the continued growth of telepresence - telepresence systems should have the same ease of interoperability as do telephones. Either you make a shorter statement in the Introduction, of you just refer to the introduction text in section 2, page 5. 3.2 section. The whole section describes possible techniques to overcome the mismatched situation at the 2 sites... but it does not analyse at all possible effects that different proposed solutions have on the "telepresence effect" itself, and on human participants. As this is a "scenario introduction", we should also consider this aspect, as then technical specification can also handle possible mitigation actions to reduce the problm. For example, in some of the cases - remote participants chenging dynamically on the screens - a potential very bad seasick situation will happen easily, making the telepresence esperience a nightmare. Note that this comment also applies to 3.3 section. 3.3 section. The description applies to current techniques for multisites, bue there is no mention of possible overcome situations when different systems are used. Of course this is very similar to 3.2 case, but with complexity multiplied by the number of dirrefent sites. It should be useful to mention explicitly also this fact. 3.4 section. The currect text describes what you do with the H.239 equivalent channel data, and suggests the need of additional streams (not a sigle one): fine but what is the problem to solve here, is any? Ok, maybe you just need to state that you need to make interoperable the sigle "presentaton channel" provided by any site. 3.5 section. A basic doubt: is this section into the scope of this Informational document? If we aim to help deployment of complete interoparting systems, maybe it is, because most existing telepresence systems have proprietary (or likely) ways to allow participatns with non telepresence devices. If we are only aiming to real telepresence systems interoperability, then this section could go into an appendix section. 3.6 section. I tend to think that also this case is worth for an appendix (see 3.5 comments). 3.8 section. My basic doubt here is "does this belong to telepresence scenario at all? Immersive scnenario in this situation is quite different that the one described in the beginning (a typical business meeting). This comment also applies to section 3.6 Nits: none. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca
- [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-clue-… Claudio Allocchio
- Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-c… Claudio Allocchio
- Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-c… Roni Even