[SAM] Fwd: [irsg] IRSG review for draft-irtf-samrg-sam-baseline-protocol-02

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Sun, 28 April 2013 05:23 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: sam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3BE921F9487; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, 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 uJiT5x835R5s; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out5.uio.no (mail-out5.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985EE21F8F0F; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1UWK52-0003Ll-Ls; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:23:20 +0200
Received: from 213.246.16.62.customer.cdi.no ([62.16.246.213] helo=[192.168.0.103]) by mail-mx4.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1UWK51-0005os-Bx; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:23:20 +0200
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ED604941-6734-4505-81F6-29B9B644FE8A"
Message-Id: <4B1FBAB9-36C6-42B5-B976-6A156C72E432@ifi.uio.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:23:18 +0200
References: <0A9F560A-846B-40DC-83BB-DE85D7486606@ifi.uio.no>
To: Internet Research Steering Group <irsg@irtf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 2 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 4 sum msgs/h 1 total rcpts 3994 max rcpts/h 40 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 92FB2BC922A2843A51E4F2D0B7CC4EB0E07084D3
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 62.16.246.213 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 487 max/h 8 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Cc: sam@irtf.org
Subject: [SAM] Fwd: [irsg] IRSG review for draft-irtf-samrg-sam-baseline-protocol-02
X-BeenThere: sam@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "For use by members of the Scalable Adaptive Multicast \(SAM\) RG" <sam.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/sam>, <mailto:sam-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/sam>
List-Post: <mailto:sam@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sam-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/sam>, <mailto:sam-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:23:24 -0000

Hi,

I just noticed that somehow, irsg and samrg were dropped from the list of recipients of this response, sorry

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
> Subject: Re: [irsg] IRSG review for draft-irtf-samrg-sam-baseline-protocol-02
> Date: April 24, 2013 4:06:17 PM GMT+02:00
> To: Dr Mario Kolberg <mko@cs.stir.ac.uk>
> Cc: sam <sam@irtf.org>rg>, John Buford <buford@samrg.org>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In line:
> 
> 
> On 22. apr. 2013, at 12:36, Dr Mario Kolberg wrote:
> 
>> Hi Michael and All,
>> 
>> please find below our response to the IRSG review by Michael Welzl.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> Mario & John
>>  
>>> 
>>> General higher-level comments: 
>>> 
>>> 1) I found parts of the document very hard to read, sometimes wondered if this is really necessary.
>>> 
>> The document is intended for an audience which does have a technical background in the area of application layer multicasting and peer to peer overlay protocols.  We would expect readers unfamiliar with the area to first go to more basic material. Perhaps many comments in the review stem from the fact that the reviewer doesn’t have this familiarity. To help readers to get a better understanding we have added references to introductory and background material as a starting point:
>> J. Buford, H. Yu, E. K. Lua P2P Networking and Applications. Morgan Kaufman 2009 (Ch 9 Peercasting and Overlay Multicasting).
>> M. Kolberg. Employing Multicast in P2P Networks, in: Handbook of Peer-to-Peer Networking. (Ed. X. Shen, H. Yu, J. Buford, M. Akon).
>> J. Buford and H. Yu. Peer-to-Peer Overlay Multicast, in: Encyclopedia of Wireless and Mobile Communications. 2008.
>> 
> Good!
> I would like to mention that, while I know very little about application layer multicast, I do have some (outdated) P2P knowledge. It's not really my field, but I have done a little bit of work on it and also taught a lecture about it a few years ago (which even contained a brief overview of Scribe, IIRC). So that made me think, someone like me should at least be able to make some sense of the document - within certain limits of course, as I know nothing about RELOAD, for example.
> 
> 
>>> 2) In particular, P2PCast appears to be a rather complex algorithm which is "sort of" described here... I doubt that the description in the document will help most readers to really fully understand P2PCast, and I  wonder, is it necessary for this doc to try to really explain the algorithm (when, in doing so, it can really only go half-way anyway)? e.g., wouldn't it suffice to just keep the "Overview" (section 9.1) but then point to [P2PCAST] for further details, and just list the necessary facts? e.g., the JOIN procedure - do we have to know all these details here, isn't it enough to e.g. list the reorganisation messages by name and say that they're used in accordance with [P2PCAST]?
>> The ID is written for a technical audience which is presumed to be knowledgeable about RELOAD and P2P overlays and has some familiarity with multicasting at the application layer.  We provide summaries of P2PCAST and SCRIBE since these two algorithms are well known in the ALM research community, and are each representative of an important class of ALM algorithms.  If the reader needs more background, then they can go to the reference papers and find it there.
>> In our opinion, the inclusion of the essential features about each algorithm is useful and should be in the ID.  The level of detail describes  “Scribe-like” and “P2PCast-like” algorithms, and not only Scribe and P2PCAST.  Since the protocol we define is intended to support a large variety of such algorithms.
>> 
>> This is done in other in other IDs and RFCs.   For example, please take a look at section 10 of the RELOAD ID which gives detailed information about the Chord algorithm, but yet omits Chord details which one would find in the original papers from MIT. If your comments were followed, this Chord material should be removed from RELOAD spec.      Likewise see this id produced by the PPSP WG draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-04.  There are lots of other examples where important previously existing algorithms are summarized in an ID.
> 
> Well. I'm not sure if the cases you compare here really are comparable - the Chord text in the RELOAD ID is much longer, for a (it seems to me) much simpler algorithm, and a survey is really a different case, I think - its overall intention is different from a document like this one. But I see your point about trying to convey the essential features right here, and if you feel the text explains the essential bits and is helpful, I'll trust you on this one, given my lack of expertise in application-layer multicast.
> 
> 
>>> 3) Another source of confusion: the Scribe algorithm description has some pseudocode that I wasn't able to parse (maybe it refers to RELOAD things?) Not all functions there seem to clearly relate to messages that were described earlier. Even more confusing, the P2PCast algorithm description doesn't have these pseudocode snippets, so the whole thing appears inconsistent. Should it be everywhere? Should it be removed? If it stays, some explanations are needed. It can't be up to the reader to guess what e.g. "invokeMessageHandler" does, right?? (section 8.7). In this particular section, I would also expect the text and/or pseudocode to somehow draw a relationship to "push" (listed in fig. 3), but that's not there... so what is this?
>> 
>>  We agree that this pseudocode is more general and applies to both algorithms. To avoid duplication, we have moved it from Section 8 to the relevant subsections in Section 7.  
> 
> Fine.
> 
>>> 4) Structure: even if the two algorithms are only a part of the whole thing you define, the text going with them feels a bit like "we've set the stage, now we apply it - the messages you heard about before are used like this & that with this & that algorithm". That's fine! But it also gives the reader the feeling of that being "part 2", i.e. I think it should be at the end, if that makes sense.
>>> 
>> Yes the algorithms are an application of the material in earlier sections, but we don't agree that moving it to the end will help the understanding of the draft. 
> 
> Fine.
> 
>>> 5) I also think that it would be better to move the examples (section 12) to where you introduce the messages, the flow of which they illustrate. First I have to imagine what an "INVITE" message flow could look like, then I get complicated explanations of how INVITE is applied in an algorithm that I can't fully understand from this text anyway, and THEN I get a nice example illustrating an INVITE message flow... that's not very helpful for the reader I think.  e.g., when I read 7.2.3, I wondered why the "peer_id" of the source peer is even needed in the struct. By looking at the example, this would have become clear to me.
>>> 
>> The document is not meant to be a tutorial, hence the examples are not first.  The examples follow the definition of the messages so that the message use is illustrated.  If we moved the examples first, then some other reviewer could then say … why are the examples shown before the protocol messages are defined? It is not the purpose of the ID to bootstrap the reader into basic knowledge of ALM and Peer to Peer messaging.
>> 
> Fine.
> 
>>> 6) Speaking of the examples, what's the point of showing more peers than you actually use in the example? Okay, I can understand that perhaps you wanted to have the same number for all of them, but then you could still remove P3 because it seems that you never use P3 for anything in any of the examples.
>> 
>> We added these peers is to illustrate that 1) not all the peers in the overlay have to be part of each ALM connection, and 2) the overlay could have an arbitrary number of peers.
> 
> Well, even a total P2P nut like myself understands that without even seeing P3, but whatever  :-)
> 
>>> 7) Nits:
>>> 
>>> IANA Considerations: are you sure that there is nothing? e.g., how would a new algorithm code be assigned?   (section 11.4) 
>>> - btw, why is the section called "Algorithm Codes" but then the text talks about "Algorithm Types" ?
>>> 
>> There are no IANA considerations since this is to be an informational RFC.
> 
> Ah, ok, sure -
> 
>>> 8) Some references (CASTRO2003, P2PCAST) need a space (I mean, " ") after their first appearance. 
>>> cut.....
>> All these edits have been done and version 03 has been submitted. 
> 
> Fine, thanks!
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
>