TP Ad Hoc Minutes Chairs: Mary Barnes Allyn Romanow Notetaker: Peter Musgrave Charter Scope Discussion: Brian Rosen: Limit discussion to just mapping streams to screens etc. Stephan: No we need to more. MCU control etc. Wise to have a first milestone to discover the work which is required Allyn: (summary) debate is to have a specific charter on spatial relationships with audio/video and define what else need to define. Chris Martin: Can we agree on definitions? e.g continuos presence, segment switching. Presumption here that a call between rooms is a single call - but in some early systems this was not the case (e..g multiple point to point calls). Allyn: Call control is out of scope - really just talking about media. Stephan: Strongly in favour of one call Brian: IETF has a history with generic conferencing. It's all bad. Due to scope getting too big. No useful work gets done. Scope should be limited. Deal with other problems by re-chartering. We want this to succeed - so do not keep things open ended. Steve Botzko: More than spatial relationships are need - need cues for which streams matter, need speaker info which video streams contain them etc. Allyn: Do you think we can specify the 'other dimensions'? Harold Oelston: Can't do interoperable experience with just spatial relationships - has to deal with presentations. Often decision is local based on logical relationships. Better not to be just limited. Stephan: Agree with Harold. e.g. switch time of CODECs when sharing screen relationships different CODECs can behave very differently. Layer CODECs have good choices in some cases. Do not believe a session of this hour will result in the formation of a well defined charter. Suggest a WG which has a first draft which limits it's own scope Mary: That's not the dispatch process. Stephan: My company has an interest in getting layered CODEC into this WG. HAving this discussion in a non-formal setting is not the right thing to do. Could do a broad charter or leave WG to charter itself. Either way hard to do this in this session. Christian: Interested in asymmetry issues. Can we have TX/Rx asymmetry e.g. TP to small endpoint. Allyn: Not focusing on video for all devices, want TP and then all SIP devices. (general TP needs definition) Cullen: As co-author of conferencing docs - we blew it. Lets keep separate things separate. Try to keep it simple. IMTC for a year has been trying to see what's missing we don't need to repeat it here. Allyn: Examples Cullen: HOw to place spatial audio, applying logical labels to people etc. But let's NOT build arbitrarily complex solutions. Don't look too far down the road - limit scope Allyn: We though we were precise - now realize not. Brian:The IETF mechanism is a BOF. Marshall: Was part of IMTC "design team". We had a good group of experienced people - use cases are real-world. Christian: Got the impression it was underspecified. Is the consensus use cases are not detailed enough. Stephan: Problem is not use-cases. How do we distill them into a charter.? Allyn: Agree that is the next step. Haslan: Where is the protocol in the milestones? Is it in architecture? Framework? Mary: Could be in e.g. framework. Allyn: Charter does say a protocol doc would be submitted in the initial protocol. Haslan: Protocol extensions done in new WG or others? Mary: Could be done in new WG. Haslan: Is work based on existing products? Allyn: Idea is to build future architectures on a standard and to the extent possible be interoperable with current solutions. Keith: Need to be more specific. Want to see recharter before a protocol is defined so there can IETF wide discussion. Allyn: Currently says re-charter is protocol not needed. You want this reversed? Keith: Yes Allyn: We do know what we want to do - but not all the specific steps. Semantics for multiple streams is fairly specific. Stephan: Is multiple stream the correct word (esp. if think of RTP streams). We could put all this in one RTP stream and various exotic ways. This level of abstraction is worth leaving open - we may decide we only have one stream. Brian: This is scope creep. New encoding is out of scope Allyn: Yes - this would be out of scope John Eldwell: Is the problem multiple sources/sinks and how to handle disparities in #sources/#sinks Allyn: So far we have not dictated what you do with the multiple streams you get - not trying to specify this behaviour. Marshall: Let's limit to what the short term demand is. Let's not try and predict the future. Mary: Take away is that the charter will be updated. Allyn: Can we have a separate mailing list and phone meetings. Video meetings!!! (general derision) Allyn: We can do work on the mailing list. Doodle poll for phone meetings. Christian: TP as a marketing term was discussed earlier - do we need a discussion of TP meaning? Do we need to strengthen the definition to avoid e.g. video conferencing objections Stephan: Agree - should set at some limit e.g. nothing less than 720p but also works to interwork with mobile devices. Other element is the support of multiple screens on the rendering side. Otherwise we have working protocols. We have some language agreement here is it recorded. MAry: We have minutes Cullen: Need to define terms - lets not use Telepresence - it's a marketing term. If we pick TP this will become a quagmire. The term will be mis-interpreted. Andrew: Is TP mutual - or does it include mobile and multi-media conferencing with a mix of mobiles. Allyn: Participation means you need to know what to do. Brian: Agree with Cullen. Defining does not work. Participants will vary from simple to complex. Doing the full matrix of possibilities is bigger than what you need to do. Just need to describe the streams to the devices which are getting them. Allyn: Agree - but want to describe inter-relationships. Paul K: Is the intention that we can get to WG by next meeting. Gonzalo: Good to set up a new mailing list. But need to get consensus on dispatch… Allyn: Should we stay on dispatch. Gonzalo: Sip overload did have a separate mailing list. Allyn: Nervous to have two lists. Keith: Other mailing list can be for draft progression e.g. SIP overload.