[decade] WG review of draft-ietf-decade-survey-02

"David A. Bryan" <dbryan@ethernot.org> Tue, 28 December 2010 17:16 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; b=NtinQh4YZHjuveJCw/mnY5Q8mteW70Tc5geMXSOAK3Ht58UDUyuu+8T7b6xF27j5ij /anEWHrUe1sPuTxqHBrJrM/xiRHLxmJ4Ja6CC5p+Nx4gX/WA6dbRlrahXhekC7vqbnSK ZZXBYvgZFR62LyAMzSE03StXFQn85oD+GKd2k=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: davidbryan@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:18:53 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=jcObRCWns0PKVU0BHjZzKgHmu_+UjyUc-n1yL@mail.gmail.com>
From: "David A. Bryan" <dbryan@ethernot.org>
To: DECADE <decade@ietf.org>, Richard Alimi <rich@velvetsea.net>, "Y. R. Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>, "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@interdigital.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "Woundy, Richard" <richard_woundy@cable.comcast.com>
Subject: [decade] WG review of draft-ietf-decade-survey-02
Precedence: list

Please find my review for draft-ietf-decade-survey-02 below.

Overall, I think the document is in good shape. As a survey, it
provides a good cross section of the space, provides some commentary
without making any specific decisions or imposing a particular view,
and is clear and concise. I have very few technical comments or
concerns, but a fair number of small nits and grammatical/editorial
comments.

The author list at the end and the list on the header don't agree. The
header has 3 authors, the end has 6.

Section 3.0: just before 3.1 you talk about not discussing protocol
choices in the current version of this document. Since this is going
to RFC, that comment should be removed (just mention that you don't
cover that...)

Section 3.4 seems like a key concept isn't quite there or isn't
explained clearly. The three categories -- public-restricted,
public-unrestricted and private are not clearly explained with regard
to read vs. write. The example for public-restricted of TV restricted
to a geographical region implies that this is for reading access, but
it seems to be private in terms or write access. Might want a
clarification sentence or two here about how you are using the term.

For 4.11.1, it would be good to have a reference here about P2P caches
being widely deployed. I actually thought that many ISPs found it too
difficult to do and so didn't use these protocol-specific caches. Can
we cite some evidence that they are widely deployed?

Nits / grammar:

In the introduction, second paragraph, replace on with of. Not t a
"substantial increase on capacity". Maybe "substantial increase of
capacity"?

Intro, para 3, line 1: introduced should be introduces

2.2, para 1, line 2: reducing should be reduce

2.2 para 4, line 1: replace only with just. Line 7 replace first is with are.

2.2 para 6, line 1 maturity should be maturation. Last sentence needs
"the" after however.

4.1.1 last line need "the" between update and contents.

4.2 para 4 line 4 "...server it is..." should be "server if it is"

In Section 4.4, the grammatical use of CDN is inconsistent. When
talking about a property, sometimes it is "a CDN does X", sometimes
"CDN does X" and sometimes "CDNs do X". I think the first and third
("a CDN" and "CDNs") seem right, but it should be consistent in any
case.

4.4 para 2 line 5 to should be for

4.4 para 3 line 1 host should be hosts

The first sentence of 4.4.2 is really awkward. Maybe "CDNs are
typically closed internal systems, and generally only provide read
(retrieve) access and not write (store) access to clients."?

4.4.3 line 1 provider should be providers. The use of data here (with
one in front of it)  is strange too -- maybe call it data object
instead?

4.4.4 provider should be providers, and hold should be holds (or even
better, stores?)

4.4.8 "they also can" seems like it should be removed.

4.7 information-centric and host-centric are not consistently
hyphenated (sometimes yes, sometimes no...)

4.11.2.6 line 1 need "is" between mechanism and provided. line 3 "P2P
cache is getting" should be "P2P caches are getting"

4.13 well-built seems odd here. "proven" maybe?

4.13.2 line 3 need is between that and not.

5.5.4 para 3, "passed" should be "past"

Several of the references (for example [1]) are out of date.

[decade] WG review of draft-ietf-decade-survey-02 David A. Bryan
Re: [decade] WG review of draft-ietf-decade-surve… Rahman, Akbar
Re: [decade] WG review of draft-ietf-decade-surve… Rahman, Akbar
Re: [decade] WG review of draft-ietf-decade-surve… Richard Alimi