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

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On 12/16/2011 10:35 AM, zhangyunfei wrote:
> [Writing individually]
>      As the co-author of PPSP problem statement draft, I would like to
> share some lessons learnt in the IESG review procedure. The IESG will
> take the amount and the quality of the comments on the WGLC draft as
> very important metric to evaluate the working group draft. The value of
> one working draft with few comments is hardly to be recognized by IESG.
>     So please submit your comments, for and against the draft, where
> to modify, what is lacking as a potential RFC, in the mailing list. This
> is REALLY important to push forward the progress of PPSP WG.
>     Thanks.


Agreed!

Other lessons learned from the IESG review of the problem statement:

- We need to be very careful about how individual companies and products
  are mentioned in order to not be perceived as "marketing" (this was a
  common complaint from the IESG)

- We need to very clearly state why this document is needed, and to what
  end it's used for (the IESG questioned the usefulness of the problem
  statement, as it stood at the time it was reviewed).  I believe in the
  survey document, the abstract and introduction can be made much
  stronger in this regard.  I believe this should be described as more
  of a trade study of P2P streaming architectures in order to motivate
  the down-selection of the design for PPSP.  In my opinion, a lot of
  rework, and perhaps even a reorganization, will be needed in the
  additional sections as well in order to make this survey stand on its
  own as a document useful to have published as an RFC, and perhaps
  even a reorganization.


-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems