Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts

Victor Pascual <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com> Thu, 26 January 2012 23:13 UTC

Return-Path: <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065C521F8603 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:13:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TBCdV08Kcf3D for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:13:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDCA821F85F1 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wgbed3 with SMTP id ed3so910788wgb.13 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:13:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=7WwcoAGmHvz3kBVg8oYwmIRgrzhU5NsHijtBOO0trkw=; b=DQYZt7N/yB2K/nKNMZr644+kog3VG+TV84U62+TLiZTLTQthEWs3YR+2f4iV68eKNk GgLqMg73Lj5FPZtd8aOA7CCEJ0B0KiaGy2YmIz++ngE+qSiiVWbQKHvscumDUbvhIaL0 e+N1hkhX2LDkoFf/X9NQnL1EtXXp4AMXMZlc8=
Received: by 10.180.97.37 with SMTP id dx5mr8856137wib.3.1327619580088; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.174.191.157] ([80.27.100.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n3sm17198449wiz.9.2012.01.26.15.12.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:12:58 -0800 (PST)
References: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F024EED689@PALLENE.office.hd> <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779148B0219@szxeml504-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779148B0219@szxeml504-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <4B302CD4-AE39-40AB-B40B-56A74A2B5C60@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A405)
From: Victor Pascual <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:12:53 +0100
To: ZongNing <zongning@huawei.com>
Cc: "ppsp@ietf.org" <ppsp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol <ppsp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ppsp>, <mailto:ppsp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ppsp>
List-Post: <mailto:ppsp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ppsp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp>, <mailto:ppsp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:13:02 -0000

+1

On Jan 17, 2012, at 1:28 AM, ZongNing <zongning@huawei.com> wrote:

> I don't have problem with merging these two drafts.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 9:09 PM
> To: ppsp@ietf.org
> Subject: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts
> 
> Dear all, 
> 
> The authors of draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement have received a number of comments from the IESG. You can see the comments here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement/ballot/
> 
> An important reoccurring question from the members of the IESG is about the scope of the document and if such a document is still needed. The general answer, at least in my opinion, is that such document is need as it writes down the challenges and the environments in which a p2p streaming should operate. 
> 
> With respect to the requirements document: This has not yet made it to the IESG, but we received some comments that the document is rather small. This is not judging the technical quality. 
> 
> However, our AD recommended merging the problem statement and requirements documents into a single document, in order to be more comprehensive. 
> 
> Now the question to the WG:
> Are there any objections to merge the problem statement draft and requirements draft into a single document comprising both?
> The merged version would also address the comments received for the problem statement during the IESG review.
> 
> Please let us know your opinion and comments until January 23rd. 
> 
>  Martin
> 
> martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu
> 
> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ppsp mailing list
> ppsp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
> _______________________________________________
> ppsp mailing list
> ppsp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp