Original text:
proposals to use in describing how new technologies address or avoid these existing observed problems. <del> 1.1. Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication (To the editor: check this repository URL after the draft is adopted. The working group may create its own repository) This document is in the Github repository at https://github.com/GrumpyOldTroll/ietf-mops-drafts.  Readers are welcome to open issues and send pull requests for this document. Substantial discussion of this document should take place on the MOPS working group mailing list (mops@ietf.org). </del> 2. 2.1. 4. <del> Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication TBD: suggestion from mic at IETF 106 (Mark Nottingham): dive into the different constraints coming from different parts of the network or distribution channels. (regarding questions about how to describe the disconnect between demand vs. capacity, while keeping good archival value.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_k340xT2jM&t=13m TBD: suggestion from mic at IETF 106 (Dave Oran + Glenn Deen responding): pre-placement for many use cases is useful-distinguish between live vs.  cacheable.  "People assume high-demand == live, but not always true" with popular netflix example. (Glenn): something about latency requirements for cached vs. streaming on live vs.  pre-recorded content, and breaking requirements into 2 separate charts.  also: "Standardized ladder" for adaptive bit rate rates suggested, declined as out of scope. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_k340xT2jM&t=14m15s TBD: suggestion at the mic from IETF 106 (Aaron Falk): include industry standard metrics from citations, some standard scoping metrics may be already defined.  https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=4_k340xT2jM&t=19m15s </del>  5.

Reviewer comments:
consolidated venue and history sections, moved TBDs to issues list and removed from draft, added a few links to help reviewers Any changes anyone would like to see, or does this work? I propose that any of us other than the pull-requester should feel free to merge it if they're happy with it and nobody has objected in a reasonably short time, or of course to suggest improvements.

Revised text:
proposals to use in describing how new technologies address or avoid these existing observed problems.  2. 2.1. 4.  <ins> Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and its subsections before publication. This section is to provide references to make it easier to review the development and discussion on the draft so far. 4.1. (To the editor: check this repository URL after the draft is adopted. The working group may create its own repository) This document is in the Github repository at https://github.com/GrumpyOldTroll/ietf-mops-drafts.  Readers are welcome to open issues and send pull requests for this document. Substantial discussion of this document should take place on the MOPS working group mailing list (mops@ietf.org). 4.2. Presentations: IETF 105 BOF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G3YBVmn9Eo&t=47m21s IETF 106 Mops meeting: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=4_k340xT2jM&t=7m23s List archive search for doc mentions: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mops/?q=draft-ietf-mops- streaming-opcons </ins> 5.