Subject: Re: [decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement

From: Richard Alimi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 14:58:08 -0800

Apologies for the delay in getting back to this.  Thank you for the
reviews.  One comment inline:

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Songhaibin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Akbar,
>
> Thank you very much for the review. Please see inline.
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Rahman, Akbar [[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 4:26
> To: Songhaibin
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Comments on Decade Problem Statement
>
> Hi Haibin,
>
>
> As per my action from the IETF Beijing meeting, here are my comments (as 1 of the 3 volunteer reviewers) on draft-song-decade-problem-statement-00.
>
> Overall, the document looks in very good shape.  However, I did have the following comments:
>
>
> Technical questions:
>
> 1.       I read the reference [weaver-alto-edge-caches] given in sections 1 and 3 and got the impression that [weaver-alto-edge-caches] stresses that the P2P cache should be specifically located at the “edge” for best performance.  I did not see this point stressed in the PS, was there a specific reason for not stressing this point?  I am not advocating that we do so, but I am just trying to understand as the reference was stressed in the PS as a good justification for DECADE.
>
> [Haibin] Good question. It makes sense to discuss the location of the P2P Cache or DECADE storage in the draft. They should be located at the edge of ISP's network for better performance. We will add some sentences in the next version if people like.
>

I'm not sure that the problem statement needs to advocate a particular
placement.  There are multiple tradeoffs here.  For example, though
placing a storage server near the edge can reduce latency, depending
on your definition of "edge" and how many subscribers are covered, it
also may mean less opportunity for de-duplication, increased equipment
costs (more servers), and more-difficult physical access to the
machines for maintenance.

Because of the complexity of this problem, it seems better to stay
silent on the issue in the problem statement with regards to
recommendations (and perhaps just note that placement of servers has
both cost and performance implications).

Thanks,
Rich