Re: [ppsp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 until Dec 5th

"Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com> Wed, 28 December 2011 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.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 5F6FA21F858C for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:33:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.26
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45]
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 0a3UZ5maAZpR for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:33:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from idcout.InterDigital.com (idcexmail.interdigital.com [12.32.197.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F6521F856F for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:33:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SAM.InterDigital.com ([10.30.2.11]) by idcout.InterDigital.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:33:41 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CCC59F.FC9509A7"
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:33:41 -0500
Message-ID: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C04419B20@SAM.InterDigital.com>
In-Reply-To: <006b01ccc506$d1204390$7360cab0$@com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [ppsp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 until Dec 5th
Thread-Index: Acyx7vNab9Gj8uajTcC7K6ZP3YwX/QTFv2PgACVzNeA=
References: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F024E8A192@Polydeuces.office.hd><5F451E2E-8E6F-4AE8-A15B-F56D5C15B261@ieee.org> <006b01ccc506$d1204390$7360cab0$@com>
From: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>
To: "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <guyingjie@huawei.com>, ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Dec 2011 20:33:41.0883 (UTC) FILETIME=[FCCF7CB0:01CCC59F]
Subject: Re: [ppsp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 until Dec 5th
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: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:33:44 -0000

Hi,

 

Sorry for my delay in reviewing the draft.  I finally got a chance to do it and here are my comments:

 

・         Overall, I think the draft is a very useful document for the WG and for the IETF community, in general, and I support advancing it to the next stage.

 

・         I do however have the following comments that I would appreciate being addressed in the next revision of the draft:

 

o   There were many editorial faults which I found when I ran the “check nits” tool (see link below):

§  http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02.txt

§  Summary: 2 errors (**), 29 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

 

o   There are too many authors!  My experience is that the IETF only allows a maximum of 5 author (editors).  The rest of the contributors should be acknowledged in the document but should not be listed as authors.

 

o   It would have been nice if there had been some sort of summary table comparing the performance characteristics of the different surveyed systems.  There was quite a lot of text in the survey giving qualitative statements about performance (e.g. paragraph right above section 3.2) but it was hard for me to form a coherent picture about the performance differences between the different surveyed systems.  Anyways, this is not a “MUST” request only a “nice to have” request!

 

o   I understand that section 4 is in essence a type of “Conclusion” section.  The summary of the “common P2P streaming process model” is good and useful.  What I found missing was whether the authors were recommending that the PPSP WG necessarily follow this model (or not) in their protocol design?  I think that this recommendation needs to be clearly and explicitly stated in this section.

 

o   I found the Security section to be weak.  It points to the Problem Statement document.  When I went to that document, it had some text but then again pointed to another document.  I think that a Security section needs to be written for this document based on what was learned about the surveyed systems.  This is a Survey document and it should be self contained for the reader.

 

o   One final question.  I had expected BitTorrent to be included in the survey as I saw a lot of hype in the press about the BitTorrent streaming protocol  (e.g. http://gigaom.com/video/bittorrent-live-streaming-test/).  Can you include it in the survey?

 

 

 

Thanks for the good work and again I support advancing the draft.

 

 

Akbar

 

 

From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 9:17 PM
To: 'Rui Cruz'; 'ppsp'
Subject: Re: [ppsp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 until Dec 5th

 

Thank you for reviewing and for the comments.

I will update the corresponding part of the draft. 

 

Hope to hear more comments from the WG. Thank you very much.

 

*Seems that we have made most the people who are interested in PPSP Survey became the co-authors of the draft. The result is that we have a long author list, but few reviewers. : ( *

 

 

 

________________________________

Best Regards
Gu Yingjie

 

发件人: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Rui Cruz
发送时间: 2011年12月4日 乐乐3:08
收件人: ppsp
抄送: Rui Cruz
主题: Re: [ppsp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 until Dec 5th

 

Hi,

 

Reading again the draft I noticed the following:

 

In the Introduction section, the sentence "the studied P2P streaming systems...." just mentions PPLive, Joost and Octoshape", however the document considers several other systems organized by their topology (mesh-based, tree-based and hybrid). IMHO that sentence should mention the topologies and list the systems surveyed.

 

There is a typo in last sentence of page 20: "In stead ..." should be "Instead ...."

 

In page 25, section 3.3.1, 2nd sentence of 1st paragraph, seems out of place as it refers to "As in the above analysis, " and there seems to be no related analysis above. A suggestion would be to continue first sentence like "... live streaming, but had poor delay ...".

 

In page 26 first paragraph there is no description of the acronym BM, and the last sentence does really need to be in parenthesis?

 

Regards,

Rui Cruz

 

On 21/11/2011, at 15:35, Martin Stiemerling wrote:

 

Dear all,

This is the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for "Survey of P2P Streaming Applications" (draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02, http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02.txt). 

Please review the draft and send your comments to the PPSP list. Any type of review is appreciated, even it is saying only "I have read the draft and it is ok". 
However, a thorough review is required by a number of PPSP WG members (which is YOU!)

The WGLC starts right now and will end December 5th, 6pm PT.  

 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

 


Regards,

 

Rui Cruz

rui.cruz@ieee.org

 

IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal

__________________________________________

ppsp mailing list

ppsp@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp