[decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement

"Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com> Wed, 24 November 2010 20:25 UTC

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB8C15.DB4E29AE"
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:26:21 -0500
Message-ID: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C031F9DC2@SAM.InterDigital.com>
Thread-Topic: Comments on Decade Problem Statement
Thread-Index: AcuMFdsdaXE4UKRKQJ+qvlprT6VXaA==
From: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>
To: melodysong@huawei.com
Cc: decade@ietf.org
Subject: [decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement
Precedence: list

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.

 

2.       In section 3, there is a reference to "P2P Cache vendor".  Are
there really such specific vendors?  Or are P2P caches provided as part
of the overall solution by the P2P application provider?  I don't know
the answer to this question, I am just asking.

 

3.       Can you please define "flash crowd" as used in section 3?  When
I looked up "flash crowd" and "flash mob"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_mob) in Wikipedia they had negative
connation so I am not sure if you were referring to the same thing?

 

4.       In section 4, there are several paragraphs talking about DECADE
and PPSP working together.  Are these paragraphs really necessary?  The
implication (to me at least) is that we have to have interactions
between DECADE and PPSP protocols.  But I do not see the necessity or
value in this.  I would find it more appropriate to move these
DECADE-PPSP sections to section 5 (similar to the BitTorrent usage
scenario in section 5.1). 

 

5.       Suggest to add some text to section 6 (security considerations)
for "authorization" as this is a specific feature of DECADE (section
4.2).

 

 

Format/Editorial questions:

1.       For some reason, in the html view of the draft
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-00) the
hyper link to section 3.3 from the TOC is not there.  Perhaps because
the section title is too long?

 

2.       In the first paragraph of section 1 (Intro), it is not clear
what "many Internet networks" means?  Suggest to re-word it to refer to
"ISP networks", "sub-networks" or some other similar term.

 

3.       I found one of the paragraphs in section 4 hard to read and
understand.  It was the paragraph that started with " The Peer to Peer
Streaming Protocol in the IETF ...".   Suggest to break it into at least
two new paragraphs and to re-word to make it clearer.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Akbar

[decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement Rahman, Akbar
Re: [decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement Songhaibin
Re: [decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement Songhaibin
Re: [decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement zhangyunfei
Re: [decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement Songhaibin
Re: [decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement zhangyunfei
Re: [decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement Rahman, Akbar
Re: [decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement Songhaibin
Re: [decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement zhangyunfei
Re: [decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement Rahman, Akbar
Re: [decade] Comments on Decade Problem Statement Richard Alimi