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

Hi Rahman,

Thank you for the review and comments.

See inline please.

  _____  

Best Regards
Gu Yingjie

发件人: Rahman, Akbar [mailto:Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com] 
发送时间: 2011年12月29日 乐乐4:34
收件人: Yingjie Gu(yingjie); ppsp
主题: RE: [ppsp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 until Dec 5th

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-su
rvey-02.txt

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

[Yingjie Gu] Very particular, will modify the draft.

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.

[Yingjie Gu] Yes, every author has contribute to the draft. We will adjust
the author list to reserve only <5 editors. The other authors will be moved
to a Contributor list.

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!

[Yingjie Gu] Good point, we will try to make a clean performance table to
make it convenient for readers to get the main information based on current
data in the draft. But I am not very sure that we will have a comprehensive
performance table. Some systems are just out of business and some are lack
of public data on performance.

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.

[Yingjie Gu] My understanding of the survey draft is to give the WG an
overview of existing P2P system. But the WG may choose a quite different
arch. and mechanism. We have a long discussion on the mail list about Peer
Protocol. And the choice of Peer protocol mechanism is different from any of
the existing protocols. (There might be some common part, but the difference
is also very significant.)  So I would say the recommendation does not
necessarily make sense to the definition of protocols.  And this is the
reason that I think Survey draft should be informational. 

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.

[Yingjie Gu] Agree. We will add more information to the Security section. 

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?

[Yingjie Gu] J Yes, I read this document when I was working on survey draft.
The reason we didn’t include it maybe because BitTorrent is not very
popular on streaming. (I maybe wrong, I forgot the reason why we didn’t
include it.) I would to listen to how the other authors’s opinion. 

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

[Yingjie Gu] Thank you again for your comments J

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