IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts

zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com> Tue, 17 January 2012 01:48 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 7715B21F86DF for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:48:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.158
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.158 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 EM7LYmJk0CUQ for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:48:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6227221F868C for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:48:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244CEE6BE; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:48:23 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC3FE6B2; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:48:22 +0800 (CST)
Received: from cmcc- ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012011709481988-2455 ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:48:19 +0800
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:48:18 +0800
From: zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com>
To: "Schmidt, Christian 1. (NSN - DE/Munich)" <christian.1.schmidt@nsn.com>, Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>, ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
References: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F024EED689@PALLENE.office.hd>, <C58FFCAAA14F454A85AFB7C1C2F862C402BC4A63@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2012011709481868723243@chinamobile.com>
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-01-17 09:48:19, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-01-17 09:48:22, Serialize complete at 2012-01-17 09:48:22
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart240760176833_=----"
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18650.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.764-7.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--10.764-7.0-31-10;No--10.764-7.0-31-10
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 01:48:25 -0000

I think this name is fine.

BR
Yunfei




zhangyunfei

From: Schmidt, Christian 1. (NSN - DE/Munich)
Date: 2012-01-16 21:25
To: ext Martin Stiemerling; ppsp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts
>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.

No problem with merging the two documents.
What would be the name: PPSP Problem statement and requirements?

/Christian



-----Original Message-----
From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Martin Stiemerling
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 2:09 PM
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/ballo
t/

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
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email