Subject: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:08:59 +0000

Dear all, 

The authors of draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement have received a number of comments from the IESG. You can see the comments here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement/ballot/

An important reoccurring question from the members of the IESG is about the scope of the document and if such a document is still needed. The general answer, at least in my opinion, is that such document is need as it writes down the challenges and the environments in which a p2p streaming should operate. 

With respect to the requirements document: This has not yet made it to the IESG, but we received some comments that the document is rather small. This is not judging the technical quality. 

However, our AD recommended merging the problem statement and requirements documents into a single document, in order to be more comprehensive. 

Now the question to the WG:
Are there any objections to merge the problem statement draft and requirements draft into a single document comprising both?
The merged version would also address the comments received for the problem statement during the IESG review.

Please let us know your opinion and comments until January 23rd. 

  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

---

From: "Schmidt, Christian 1. (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:25:40 +0100

>Are there any objections to merge the problem statement draft and
requirements draft into a single document comprising both?
>The merged version would also address the comments received for the
problem statement during the IESG review.

No problem with merging the two documents.
What would be the name: PPSP Problem statement and requirements?

/Christian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
ext Martin Stiemerling
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 2:09 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts

Dear all, 

The authors of draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement have received a number
of comments from the IESG. You can see the comments here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement/ballo
t/

An important reoccurring question from the members of the IESG is about
the scope of the document and if such a document is still needed. The
general answer, at least in my opinion, is that such document is need as
it writes down the challenges and the environments in which a p2p
streaming should operate. 

With respect to the requirements document: This has not yet made it to
the IESG, but we received some comments that the document is rather
small. This is not judging the technical quality. 

However, our AD recommended merging the problem statement and
requirements documents into a single document, in order to be more
comprehensive. 

Now the question to the WG:
Are there any objections to merge the problem statement draft and
requirements draft into a single document comprising both?
The merged version would also address the comments received for the
problem statement during the IESG review.

  Martin

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

---

From: ZongNing <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:28:14 +0000

I don't have problem with merging these two drafts.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 9:09 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts

Dear all, 

  Martin

---

From: zhangyunfei <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:47:40 +0800

[Speaking as the author of the problem statement draft]
We have talked with the requirement draft author about the merger. In general, we are fine about the merger if this merger makes IESG more clear about the necessity of the PS and moves forward the progress of PPSP WG.
We'll start the merger after the WG makes the decision.Thanks.

BR
Yunfei

zhangyunfei

From: Martin Stiemerling
Date: 2012-01-16 21:08
To: [email-masked]

  Martin

---

From: zhangyunfei <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:48:18 +0800

I think this name is fine.

BR
Yunfei

zhangyunfei

From: Schmidt, Christian 1. (NSN - DE/Munich)
Date: 2012-01-16 21:25
To: ext Martin Stiemerling; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts

/Christian

-----Original Message-----

Dear all, 

  Martin

---

From: Victor Pascual <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:12:53 +0100

+1