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

zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com> Mon, 08 October 2012 02:25 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 3A59E21F875C for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 19:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.690, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, 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 L-1NcVw7ojSM for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 19:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2B6921F873A for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 19:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2869AE4CE; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:25:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C739E4A4; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:25:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from zyf-PC ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012100810250248-6755 ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:25:02 +0800
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:24:59 +0800
From: zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com>
To: "Martin Stiemerling" <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>, ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
References: <506A963F.4070505@neclab.eu>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2012100810245943765648@chinamobile.com>
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-10-08 10:25:02, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-10-08 10:25:04, Serialize complete at 2012-10-08 10:25:04
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart816222527245_=----"
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-19252.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--23.247-7.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--23.247-7.0-31-10;No--23.247-7.0-31-10
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No
Subject: Re: [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
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: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 02:25:06 -0000

Hi Martin,
   Thanks for the suggestion. As the co-authors, we wish to address ALL the IESG concerns in the updated draft or replies to the ADs. Actually I replied to Stephen(cc to the IESG) to explain the purpose of the use cases section(This section is not for the to-do list for the WG, but for the explanatory effect to show how PPSP could be used in practice). But I didn't add this in the draft text. This may lead to some confusion when you look into the AD reviews and check the text.
    I think double-check the AD comments is a good suggestion and I'll add some "replies words" to the draft if necessary more than just replying in the email. 

BR
Yunfei
    



zhangyunfei

From: Martin Stiemerling
Date: 2012-10-02 15:22
To: ppsp
Subject: [ppsp] Open issues out of last IESG evaluation for draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement-10.txt
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
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp