Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-08
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Fri, 20 June 2014 16:06 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A93D1B2852; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nqwp1jRrLjGp; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC291B2843; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F62F9C015; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 12:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XdK2b1PAJ4T0; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 12:06:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-96-255-144-77.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.144.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC04CF9C01A; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 12:06:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-08
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 11:15:25 -0400
Message-Id: <58EC4CB6-6867-4110-B961-D76876503239@vigilsec.com>
To: draft-ietf-ppsp-survey.all@tools.ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dnUnNI6bZaZHnDFbG54-_kdgoTs
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:06:51 -0000
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-08 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2014-06-20 IETF LC End Date: 2014-06-30 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Major Concerns: None Minor Concerns: - Section 4.5 talks about differences between Tribler and BitTorrent; however, BitTorrent has not been described. The authors need to describe BitTorrent before this section, or this section needs to be written without comparison to BitTorrent. At a minimum, a reference to a description of BitTorrent is needed here. - Section 4.6: Please include references for CDN and STUN. - Section 7: I cannot figure out the sentence that is trying to justify the selection of ECC over RSA. The sentence needs to be rewritten to be comprehensible. - Section 7: Please include a reference for ISO/IEC 9798-3. Other Comments: - Section 1 (near bottom of page 3): This is awkward: "... which join dynamically the system ..." I suggest: "... which join the system dynamically ..." - Section 1 (near the top of page 4): I encourage you to avoid the use of "regulates". I suggest: - the "tracker protocol" for interaction between trackers and peers; - the "peer protocol" for interaction between peers. The use of "regulates" appears elsewhere too, and in each case it caused to to ask what the authors are really trying to say. In my opinion, the reader will be served by rewording in every one of these sentences. - Section 4.1: s/living streaming content/live streaming content/ - Figure 2: s/Peer3/Peer 3/ - Section 4.2: This is awkward: "PPLive website reached 50 millions of visitors for the opening ceremony of Beijing 2008 Olympics, ..." I suggest: "The PPLive website served 50 million visitors during the Beijing 2008 Olympics opening ceremony, ..." - Section 4.2: s/PPLIVE/PPLive/ - Section 4.3: s/As it can be seen also in Figure 4, there/ /Figure 4 also shows that there/
- Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-08 Russ Housley