Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts

zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com> Tue, 17 January 2012 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.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 7364621F86DF for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:47:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.694
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.694 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Dz2G-p+XKK5f for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:47:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DC021F868C for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:47:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46A9E6B2; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:47:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE7EE6AA; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:47:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from cmcc- ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012011709474170-2433 ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:47:41 +0800
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:47:40 +0800
From: zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com>
To: Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>, ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
References: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F024EED689@PALLENE.office.hd>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2012011709474054689741@chinamobile.com>
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-01-17 09:47:41, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-01-17 09:47:44, Serialize complete at 2012-01-17 09:47:44
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart853716684444_=----"
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18650.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--19.033-7.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--19.033-7.0-31-10;No--19.033-7.0-31-10
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No
Subject: Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com>
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: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 01:47:50 -0000

[Speaking as the author of the problem statement draft]
We have talked with the requirement draft author about the merger. In general, we are fine about the merger if this merger makes IESG more clear about the necessity of the PS and moves forward the progress of PPSP WG.
We'll start the merger after the WG makes the decision.Thanks.

BR
Yunfei




zhangyunfei

From: Martin Stiemerling
Date: 2012-01-16 21:08
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