[ppsp] Open issues out of last IESG evaluation for draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement-10.txt

Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu> Tue, 02 October 2012 07:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
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 4A97F21F8B5B for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 00:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.203, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CHpIIXGbDkE6 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 00:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C8121F8B5A for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 00:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674B110135C for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:22:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de)
Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-a.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J9tdVk4VwoH4 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:22:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ENCELADUS.office.hd (enceladus.office.hd [192.168.24.52]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477FC10134F for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:22:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.1.1.190] (10.1.1.190) by skoll.office.hd (192.168.125.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:22:16 +0200
Message-ID: <506A9621.1040904@neclab.eu>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:22:09 +0200
From: Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.1.1.190]
Subject: [ppsp] Open issues out of last IESG evaluation for draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement-10.txt
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: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 07:22:47 -0000

Hi,

I have been through some of the old DISCUSS and COMMENT from the last 
IESG evaluation of draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement-07.txt.

Here are the ballots with the positions:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement/ballot/

For instance, a very light one to be fixed, but I cannot find how this 
is addressed in the -10 version:

- Stephen Farrell:
Section 5 really needs to say what sections 5.x are.  They could
be use-cases the WG is going to tackle, or maybe the WG will decide
later, or whatever is the case. Without that, its hard to know why
sections 5.x are present.

The DISCUSS positions are probably addressed, but I do strongly 
recommend to double-check all comments.

   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 283