[P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 28 May 2014 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585C41A0775 for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 0CPmTnf-K-Jk for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB8141A076B for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 16:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667902176F for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:15:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 28 May 2014 19:15:14 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=date :subject:from:to:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=mesmtp; bh=6k26da5Aa5QD73gQcqirQVn fBwU=; b=wF6ROXDSrnKgXNAEnajqe7z4Rag97eiKzFKMxbQx7dr2EUDhiekIna5 8felBLHj7qIJbB1jrzdS/wxLsx/B6lvBWF3uRwOCIJRIm3h+mZ8DQQh24scNBe/B JOYU23QZZE1HpVbVdrV8Uu5jWikcpdWAbTDkyEumqFegjM9hs0SE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=6k26da5Aa5QD73gQcqirQVnfBwU=; b=Jvi2rLPtZteFHi1hqfTe6c9F24am FtWe1ae0DHKRambo+Y/wuhM/CGGhQgt6x5+4tVbWsvoNIR9Ndp1jz3ENdTRNConF wakb2gyGAOe3q9+nmqaqrJwyPGpIpgOQl3P5aG4uo364XVCKVjnwJWPosC64zal+ 3zNAJzovu2E0dO0=
X-Sasl-enc: KBPYVCRCdAoHsZf4BXERgLkg38l76sHhqrMzF+002flk 1401318913
Received: from [171.68.18.44] (unknown [171.68.18.44]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 259C4680160 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2014 19:15:12 -0400 (EDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 16:15:08 -0700
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
To: p2psip@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CFABBC0C.3CFB3%alissa@cooperw.in>
Thread-Topic: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/ZMTNel-kxjzSLElmw_e4wJiwN8w
Subject: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-self-tuning-11
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip/>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 23:15:23 -0000

I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. It’s in
good shape and I have issued the last call. Below I have a few comments
and questions for you to address together with any last call comments.

Section 6:
"To calculate an appropriate stabilization rate, the
   values of three parameters MUST be estimated: overlay size N, failure
   rate U, and join rate L.”

Seems like s/MUST/must/ is appropriate here — the formula for the
stabilization rate is essentially infeasible to calculate unless the
implementation estimates these parameters in any event.

Section 6.3:
s/K is set 25%/K is set to 25%/

Section 6.5:
It would be useful to have text here or in Section 7 to motivate the
choice of 4 as the default value for number-of-peers-to-probe and to note
the implications of using a number smaller than 4.

Section 8:
s/help ensuring/help ensure/

Section 9.1:
s/3/0x3/ (for consistency with the IANA registry)

Thanks,
Alissa