Code change:
NAME - Please let me know if this seems about right. One thing that's worth mentioning to you and to NAME - the latency characterizations that we wrote did not make use of the new "ultra-ultra-low latency" categories. I changed the one for gaming to ull100 ("ultra-low-latency under 100 ms") based on conversations at IETF 112, but other people would be better choices to review the characterizations of the use cases they're most interested in.
The opcons drafts uses 4 bands: ultra low-latency (less than 1 second) low-latency live (less than 10 seconds) non-low-latency live (10 seconds to a few minutes) on-demand (hours or more) I think these bands lose some granularity that is useful. For example, a functional video call or interactive game probably needs much less than 1s latency, while low latency live may span lower than 1s in some cases?
NAME - that's very true. The opcons draft was scoped for "streaming operators", and although we've talked (in MOPS) about doing a separate draft for low-latency streaming, we haven't done that yet (in MOPS). That may be for the best, if MOQ turns out to be "not ABR, less than 500 ms", or something like that. I'm also one of the opcons drafts, so I'm thinking we should add at least one, and probably two, lower-than-ultra-low(!!!) latency bands, and explain why we're doing that. I'm assigning this to me, so expect a PR soon.
The industry is terrible at naming things. "ultra-low", "low", "non-low", I mean really? It's all terrible marketing rather than an attempt to classify protocols. I like that the opcons tries to reuse and simplify the terminology but... latency is a complicated. Some protocols have artificial delays, but for the most part, protocols are defined by their ability to deal with congestion. A protocol like RTMP will be "ultra low-latency" within a datacenter or for a user with a perfect network connection, while it will be "low-latency" for somebody on a cellular connection, while it will be "non-low-latency" for somebody going through a tunnel... all of which depends on the implementation. At the end of the day, these lines in the sand don't add to the discussion. I would rather focus on the use-cases like "having a conversation with someone" rather than arguing over millisecond budgets.

Related discussion:
text: for the ones that do, it seems useful to have a name for "the protocol layer immediately beneath media". <ins> Within this document, we extend the latency requirement categories for streaming media described in I-D.draft-ietf-mops-streaming- opcons: ultra low-latency (less than 1 second) low-latency live (less than 10 seconds) non-low-latency live (10 seconds to a few minutes) on-demand (hours or more) These latency bands were appropriate for streaming media, which was the target for I-D.draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons, but some realtime media may have requirements that are significantly less than "ultra-low latency".  Within this document, we are also using ull500 (less than 500 ms) ull100 (less than 100 ms) Obviously, these last two latency bands are the shortened form of "ultra-low latency - 500 ms" and "ultra-low-latency - 100 ms".  Also obviously, bikeshedding on better names is welcomed. </ins> 3. Note - need to edit this section to reflect new draft scope and