Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts

"Schmidt, Christian 1. (NSN - DE/Munich)" <christian.1.schmidt@nsn.com> Mon, 16 January 2012 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <christian.1.schmidt@nsn.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 7252521F85C2 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:25:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 awscjRgFbmkp for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:25:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0DBA21F85C0 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:25:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q0GDPrbt018070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:25:54 +0100
Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q0GDPrQ4010510; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:25:53 +0100
Received: from DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.24]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:25:45 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:25:40 +0100
Message-ID: <C58FFCAAA14F454A85AFB7C1C2F862C402BC4A63@DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F024EED689@PALLENE.office.hd>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts
Thread-Index: AczUNuUUuPEbDTLMT9KQ/MDodwxcCwAGylvw
References: <E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F024EED689@PALLENE.office.hd>
From: "Schmidt, Christian 1. (NSN - DE/Munich)" <christian.1.schmidt@nsn.com>
To: ext Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>, ppsp@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jan 2012 13:25:45.0282 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A365A20:01CCD452]
Subject: Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts
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: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:25:56 -0000

>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