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

From: Rui Cruz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 19:08:05 +0000

Hi,

Reading again the draft I noticed the following:

In the Introduction section, the sentence "the studied P2P streaming systems...." just mentions PPLive, Joost and Octoshape", however the document considers several other systems organized by their topology (mesh-based, tree-based and hybrid). IMHO that sentence should mention the topologies and list the systems surveyed.

There is a typo in last sentence of page 20: "In stead ..." should be "Instead ...."

In page 25, section 3.3.1, 2nd sentence of 1st paragraph, seems out of place as it refers to "As in the above analysis, " and there seems to be no related analysis above. A suggestion would be to continue first sentence like "... live streaming, but had poor delay ...".

In page 26 first paragraph there is no description of the acronym BM, and the last sentence does really need to be in parenthesis?

Regards,
Rui Cruz

On 21/11/2011, at 15:35, Martin Stiemerling wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> This is the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for "Survey of P2P Streaming Applications" (draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02, http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02.txt). 
> 
> Please review the draft and send your comments to the PPSP list. Any type of review is appreciated, even it is saying only "I have read the draft and it is ok". 
> However, a thorough review is required by a number of PPSP WG members (which is YOU!)
> 
> The WGLC starts right now and will end December 5th, 6pm PT.  
> 
>  Martin
> 
> [email-masked]
> 
> 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
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

Regards,

Rui Cruz
[email-masked]

IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal
__________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:35:05 +0000

[Writing as co-chair]

Dear PPSP-WG,

The Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 has failed! 

There was only a single real comment about the draft from Rui on 12/3, but no one else did comment on the draft. This means that we cannot move the draft forward.

I will read this as that there is **no** interest in this draft from the working group.

Please note that the WG has to do its share in the WGLC and that there are also other people, e.g., our AD, the IESG, and the broader IETF community, will read and comment on the draft. 

Please read the comments and DISUCSSES (5!) we have received for draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement, as an example: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement/ballot/

Here you can see what a DISCUSS on a draft means for the draft:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/voting-procedures.html http://www.ietf.org/iesg/voting-procedures.html

I will discuss with Yunfei how to proceed with the draft. 

  Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Martin Stiemerling
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 4:36 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ppsp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 until Dec 5th
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> This is the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for "Survey of P2P Streaming
> Applications" (draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02, http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ppsp-
> survey-02.txt).
> 
> Please review the draft and send your comments to the PPSP list. Any type of
> review is appreciated, even it is saying only "I have read the draft and it is ok".
> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited |
> Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in
> England 2832014
> 
>

---

From: zhangyunfei <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:35:04 +0800

[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.

BR
Yunfei

zhangyunfei

From: Martin Stiemerling
Date: 2011-12-16 18:35
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ppsp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 until Dec 5th
[Writing as co-chair]

Dear PPSP-WG,

  Martin

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:45:11 -0500

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

---

From: "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:17:14 +0800

Thank you for reviewing and for the comments.

I will update the corresponding part of the draft. 

Hope to hear more comments from the WG. Thank you very much.

*Seems that we have made most the people who are interested in PPSP Survey
became the co-authors of the draft. The result is that we have a long author
list, but few reviewers. : ( *

  _____  

Best Regards
Gu Yingjie

发件人: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Rui Cruz
发送时间: 2011年12月4日 乐乐3:08
收件人: ppsp
抄送: Rui Cruz
主题: Re: [ppsp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 until Dec 5th

Hi,

In the Introduction section, the sentence "the studied P2P streaming
systems...." just mentions PPLive, Joost and Octoshape", however the
document considers several other systems organized by their topology
(mesh-based, tree-based and hybrid). IMHO that sentence should mention the
topologies and list the systems surveyed.

There is a typo in last sentence of page 20: "In stead ..." should be
"Instead ...."

In page 25, section 3.3.1, 2nd sentence of 1st paragraph, seems out of place
as it refers to "As in the above analysis, " and there seems to be no
related analysis above. A suggestion would be to continue first sentence
like "... live streaming, but had poor delay ...".

In page 26 first paragraph there is no description of the acronym BM, and
the last sentence does really need to be in parenthesis?

Regards,

Rui Cruz

Dear all,

This is the Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for "Survey of P2P Streaming
Applications" (draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02,
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02.txt). 

Please review the draft and send your comments to the PPSP list. Any type of
review is appreciated, even it is saying only "I have read the draft and it
is ok". 
However, a thorough review is required by a number of PPSP WG members (which
is YOU!)

 Martin

Regards,

Rui Cruz

[email-masked]

ppsp mailing list

[email-masked]

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:32:39 +0200

Hi,
Sorry for the late review.

I reviewed the draft and in general it looks ready.
I was wondering if it should be a standard track or informational document.

I think that it will be good to describe the motivation for the draft in the
introduction which may be clear to the working group members but may be
unclear to others.

Some editorial comments:

1. In section 3.1.1 first paragraph there is an assumption why joost stopped
the p2p solution. I think that it we are not sure the draft should not
provide a reason but just the actual fact about where p2p is being used.

2. In section 3.1.2 first sentence "to broadcast its living streaming"
should be "to broadcast its live streaming"

BR
Roni Even

> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 5:36 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Applications" (draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02, http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-
> ietf-ppsp-survey-02.txt).
> 
> Please review the draft and send your comments to the PPSP list. Any
> type of review is appreciated, even it is saying only "I have read the
> draft and it is ok".
> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited
> | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL |
> Registered in England 2832014
> 
>

---

From: "Rahman, Akbar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:33:41 -0500

Hi,

Sorry for my delay in reviewing the draft.  I finally got a chance to do it and here are my comments:

・         Overall, I think the draft is a very useful document for the WG and for the IETF community, in general, and I support advancing it to the next stage.

・         I do however have the following comments that I would appreciate being addressed in the next revision of the draft:

o   There were many editorial faults which I found when I ran the “check nits” tool (see link below):

§  http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02.txt

§  Summary: 2 errors (**), 29 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

o   There are too many authors!  My experience is that the IETF only allows a maximum of 5 author (editors).  The rest of the contributors should be acknowledged in the document but should not be listed as authors.

o   It would have been nice if there had been some sort of summary table comparing the performance characteristics of the different surveyed systems.  There was quite a lot of text in the survey giving qualitative statements about performance (e.g. paragraph right above section 3.2) but it was hard for me to form a coherent picture about the performance differences between the different surveyed systems.  Anyways, this is not a “MUST” request only a “nice to have” request!

o   I understand that section 4 is in essence a type of “Conclusion” section.  The summary of the “common P2P streaming process model” is good and useful.  What I found missing was whether the authors were recommending that the PPSP WG necessarily follow this model (or not) in their protocol design?  I think that this recommendation needs to be clearly and explicitly stated in this section.

o   I found the Security section to be weak.  It points to the Problem Statement document.  When I went to that document, it had some text but then again pointed to another document.  I think that a Security section needs to be written for this document based on what was learned about the surveyed systems.  This is a Survey document and it should be self contained for the reader.

o   One final question.  I had expected BitTorrent to be included in the survey as I saw a lot of hype in the press about the BitTorrent streaming protocol  (e.g. http://gigaom.com/video/bittorrent-live-streaming-test/).  Can you include it in the survey?

Thanks for the good work and again I support advancing the draft.

Akbar

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 9:17 PM
To: 'Rui Cruz'; 'ppsp'
Subject: Re: [ppsp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 until Dec 5th

*Seems that we have made most the people who are interested in PPSP Survey became the co-authors of the draft. The result is that we have a long author list, but few reviewers. : ( *

________________________________

Best Regards
Gu Yingjie

Hi,

Regards,

Rui Cruz

Dear all,

 Martin

Regards,

Rui Cruz

[email-masked]

ppsp mailing list

[email-masked]

---

From: ZongNing <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:23:56 +0000

Hi, Roni,

Thank you for reviewing the draft.
I think it should be informational document for a couple of reasons including better understanding of existing P2P streaming system, forming design space and possible guideline of PPSP protocols, etc.
We will explicitly describe these motivations in new revision, also fix the editorial issues you mentioned.

BR,
Ning Zong

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Roni Even
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 7:33 PM
To: 'Martin Stiemerling'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ppsp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 until Dec 5th

Hi,

Some editorial comments:

BR
Roni Even

---

From: "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:18:48 +0800

Hi Rahman,

Thank you for the review and comments.

See inline please.

  _____  

Best Regards
Gu Yingjie

发件人: Rahman, Akbar [mailto:[email-masked]] 
发送时间: 2011年12月29日 乐乐4:34
收件人: Yingjie Gu(yingjie); ppsp
主题: RE: [ppsp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-02 until Dec 5th

Hi,

Sorry for my delay in reviewing the draft.  I finally got a chance to do it
and here are my comments:

・         Overall, I think the draft is a very useful document for the WG
and for the IETF community, in general, and I support advancing it to the
next stage.

・         I do however have the following comments that I would appreciate
being addressed in the next revision of the draft:

o   There were many editorial faults which I found when I ran the “check
nits” tool (see link below):

§
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ppsp-su
rvey-02.txt

[Yingjie Gu] Very particular, will modify the draft.

o   There are too many authors!  My experience is that the IETF only allows
a maximum of 5 author (editors).  The rest of the contributors should be
acknowledged in the document but should not be listed as authors.

[Yingjie Gu] Yes, every author has contribute to the draft. We will adjust
the author list to reserve only <5 editors. The other authors will be moved
to a Contributor list.

o   It would have been nice if there had been some sort of summary table
comparing the performance characteristics of the different surveyed systems.
There was quite a lot of text in the survey giving qualitative statements
about performance (e.g. paragraph right above section 3.2) but it was hard
for me to form a coherent picture about the performance differences between
the different surveyed systems.  Anyways, this is not a “MUST” request
only a “nice to have” request!

[Yingjie Gu] Good point, we will try to make a clean performance table to
make it convenient for readers to get the main information based on current
data in the draft. But I am not very sure that we will have a comprehensive
performance table. Some systems are just out of business and some are lack
of public data on performance.

o   I understand that section 4 is in essence a type of “Conclusion”
section.  The summary of the “common P2P streaming process model” is good
and useful.  What I found missing was whether the authors were recommending
that the PPSP WG necessarily follow this model (or not) in their protocol
design?  I think that this recommendation needs to be clearly and explicitly
stated in this section.

[Yingjie Gu] My understanding of the survey draft is to give the WG an
overview of existing P2P system. But the WG may choose a quite different
arch. and mechanism. We have a long discussion on the mail list about Peer
Protocol. And the choice of Peer protocol mechanism is different from any of
the existing protocols. (There might be some common part, but the difference
is also very significant.)  So I would say the recommendation does not
necessarily make sense to the definition of protocols.  And this is the
reason that I think Survey draft should be informational. 

o   I found the Security section to be weak.  It points to the Problem
Statement document.  When I went to that document, it had some text but then
again pointed to another document.  I think that a Security section needs to
be written for this document based on what was learned about the surveyed
systems.  This is a Survey document and it should be self contained for the
reader.

[Yingjie Gu] Agree. We will add more information to the Security section. 

o   One final question.  I had expected BitTorrent to be included in the
survey as I saw a lot of hype in the press about the BitTorrent streaming
protocol  (e.g. http://gigaom.com/video/bittorrent-live-streaming-test/).
Can you include it in the survey?

[Yingjie Gu] J Yes, I read this document when I was working on survey draft.
The reason we didn’t include it maybe because BitTorrent is not very
popular on streaming. (I maybe wrong, I forgot the reason why we didn’t
include it.) I would to listen to how the other authors’s opinion. 

[Yingjie Gu] Thank you again for your comments J

Akbar

Yingjie Gu(yingjie)

 

  _____  

Best Regards
Gu Yingjie

Hi,

Regards,

Rui Cruz

Dear all,

 Martin

Regards,

Rui Cruz

[email-masked]

ppsp mailing list

[email-masked]