Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)
draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-12

[Ballot comment]
"In general, no error codes or responses are used in the protocol; absence of any response indicates an error." -- This made me do a bit of a double-take.  Obviously, the requesting peer should timeout if the responding peer doesn't respond, but are there really no cases where the responding peer knows there's a problem and wants to report it?  It seems like the CHOKE message is an indication of this sort.

I have cleared based on the text in 3.1.1, which at least defines how an initial connection is made.  I would encourage the authors, however, to consider whether there are other protocol interactions for which similarly detailed instructions would be useful.

[Ballot comment]
2.2 - s/disjunct/disjoint

3.1.1 -

OLD
  2.  The receiving peer Q checks the HANDSHAKE message from peer P.
      If any check by Q fails, Q MUST NOT send a HANDSHAKE (or any
      other) message back, as the message from P may have been spoofed
      (see Section 13.1).  Only if P and Q are in the same swarm, and Q
      is interested in communicating with P, Q MUST a datagram to P
      that starts with a HANDSHAKE message.  This reply HANDSHAKE MUST
      contain:
NEW
  2.  The receiving peer Q checks the HANDSHAKE message from peer P.
      If any check by Q fails, or if P and Q are not in the same swarm,
      Q MUST NOT send a HANDSHAKE (or any other) message back, as the
      message from P may have been spoofed (see Section 13.1).
      Otherwise, if Q is interested in communicating with P, Q sends a
      datagram to P that starts with a HANDSHAKE message.  This reply
      HANDSHAKE MUST contain:
END

3.10.1 - "Physically"? I think you can strike that.

4.3.1 - s/MUST send/sends

5.2 - s/MUST receive/needs

5.3 -

OLD
  In short, the sender MUST put into the datagram the hashes he
  believes are necessary for the receiver to verify the chunk.
NEW
  In short, the sender MUST put into the datagram the hashes that
  are necessary for the receiver to verify the chunk.
 
I don't understand what the sender's beliefs have to do with this.

1.1 says, "PPSPP is a generic protocol which can run directly on top of UDP, TCP, or other protocols." Section 8 says, "PPSPP implementations MUST use UDP as transport protocol and MUST use LEDBAT for congestion control [RFC6817].". One of those two statements is lying.

8.5-8.13 - I was really confused for a moment becuase the destination channel ID did not appear in any of these sections. Either show it, or say somewhere that it is left out of all of these sections.

[Ballot comment]

Thanks for handling my various discuss points. I think
you sorted them all, though I have to say I'm not clear
whether or not point (6) was sorted or not, that's
below....

"(6) 8.4: I don't see the swarm's metadata record in the ascii
art diagram and you just say "look at section 7" so two
questions: a) where is the "chunk size used" option in section
7? and b) do all the swarm metadata options have to be sent
each time with no limit on ordering except as given in section
7 (which had one such order sensitive limit I think)?"

However, I'm fine to make this a comment, on the basis
that I don't remember whatever it was I meant by that:-)

I'm also not so sure the s/ppsp:/file:/ URI scheme swap
will really be a fine idea, but it certainly does get past
my objection:-)


--- OLD comments below here, I did not check these for -12,
but am happy to chat about them if you want.

- Kathleen has the secdir review point covered.

- overall comment: This is too long.

- The elephant is in the room, but not the intro:-) Surely
some comparison with BT is needed in the intro? The first
reference is in 3.7 on p13, which just seems wrong.  If this
is somehow inspired by BT (can't recall) then maybe say so and
add a quick sketch (2-3 sentences) on how this differs from
BT. Those would really help the reader IMO.  Note that this
could be done by reference.

- 1.1: I really dislike the term self-certification as its
quite misleading. I guess its probably too late to get rid of
that but what (I think) is going on here is really naming
chunks so that if you know the hash of the entire content you
can verify that the chunk is from that.  (CHECK!!!)

- 1.3, 'content': s/asset/file/ would be better I think and
less capitalist;-) The term asset is odd here anyway.  Same
elsewhere. (But note this is really nitty, no need to change
unless you want to.)

- 3: I don't get what is meant by this "an external storage
mapping from the linear byte space of a single swarm to
different files" I can sorta see what's meant, but am not
sure. Maybe try clarify?

- 5.3, last para: Is the 1st MUST there really implementable
in general? I think the MUST might be to include those hashes
that the sender thinks the receiver needs.

- 6.1 - this defines two methods yet says "If the protocol
operates in a benign environment the method MAY be used."
Which is meant here?

- 6.1.2.1: what if different folks think NCHUNKS_PER_SIG has
different values? How do we all agree on a value? (BTW, the
last sentence of this section is a cool thing.)

- 7.4: "In other cases a peer MAY include a swarm identifier
option, as an end-to-end check." That's not clear to me, what
other cases?

- 7.6: I don't get why you need so many options here. Do you
really?  SHA1 is probably only needed for legacy stuff (is
there any of that?), and SHA256 should be fine for everything
else.

- 7.8: The width of the figure seems wrong.

- 7.10: An example compressed encoding would be useful.

- 8.16: "perfectly detected" - huh? what does that mean?

[Ballot comment]
There are plenty of comments from other ADs and little more is left to be said.

---

It all feels a bit Experimental to me, but I'll leave that to the
judgement of the responsible AD.

---

Section 3.4 is a bit mixed with respect to the transport.
It talks about "if PPSPP is run over an unreliable transport protocol",
but the only transport defined is UDP so the "if" is unnecessary and the
subsequent clause is pointless. This is confirmed by the text later in
the paragraph that confirms that LEDBAT is used and so implicitly
confirms that UDP is used.

Should be simple enough to tidy up.

[Ballot discuss]

I have a number of discuss points (sorry;-), but most of
'em are pretty simple really.

(1) 3.10: What is a "benign" environment? I actually do
understand what is meant, but how could a program evaluate
that in order to decicde whether or not to send a PES_RESv4?
You then refer to a "potentially hostile environment" which
could presumably be anywhere, so are you really saying that
PES_REScert is the "right thing" to do, but you know it won't
be done so these are weasel words around that awkward fact?
(Apologies if I'm wrong on that, but that's the impression I
got when reading this, but maybe that's just my paranoia:-)

(2) 6.1.2.2: What exactly are the "munro" bytes that are the
first input to the signature? Where are those defined? (Sorry
if I missed/skipped over that;-)

(3) 7.6 and 13.5: SHA1 as the MTI is wrong. Why is that ok,
given the collision resistance is less that designed for? 7.7
also calls for SHA256 being implemented in any case. The
run-time argument in 13.5 does not convince me.  Attacks only
ever get worse, so the collision resistance property which
this protocol needs ought lead to selection of an
as-far-as-known good hash function. Today that means SHA256
and not SHA1. 

(4) 7.7: Why RSASHA1 and not RSA with SHA256?

(5) 7.10: The message number is wrong in the figure.

(6) 8.4: I don't see the swarm's metadata record in the ascii
art diagram and you just say "look at section 7" so two
questions: a) where is the "chunk size used" option in section
7? and b) do all the swarm metadata options have to be sent
each time with no limit on ordering except as given in section
7 (which had one such order sensitive limit I think)?

(7) 8.13: Don't you need to register the ppsp URI scheme? In
case its useful, which I doubt, if you have code: RFC6920 URIs
could be used for this if you wanted and would save you adding
ppsp to the IANA URI scheme registry (and having to deal with
the URI police:-)

(8) 13.4: Wouldn't DTLS change the chunk size considerations
and also influence how messages map to datagrams? Isn't more
specification needed to say how to really use DTLS here? Just
saying "use DTLS or IPsec or higher layer crypto" doesn't
really seem sufficient. And doing the DTLS bits right
shouldn't be very hard either.

[Ballot comment]

- Kathleen has the secdir review point covered.

- overall comment: This is too long.

- The elephant is in the room, but not the intro:-) Surely
some comparison with BT is needed in the intro? The first
reference is in 3.7 on p13, which just seems wrong.  If this
is somehow inspired by BT (can't recall) then maybe say so and
add a quick sketch (2-3 sentences) on how this differs from
BT. Those would really help the reader IMO.  Note that this
could be done by reference.

- 1.1: I really dislike the term self-certification as its
quite misleading. I guess its probably too late to get rid of
that but what (I think) is going on here is really naming
chunks so that if you know the hash of the entire content you
can verify that the chunk is from that.  (CHECK!!!)

- 1.3, 'content': s/asset/file/ would be better I think and
less capitalist;-) The term asset is odd here anyway.  Same
elsewhere. (But note this is really nitty, no need to change
unless you want to.)

- 3: I don't get what is meant by this "an external storage
mapping from the linear byte space of a single swarm to
different files" I can sorta see what's meant, but am not
sure. Maybe try clarify?

- 5.3, last para: Is the 1st MUST there really implementable
in general? I think the MUST might be to include those hashes
that the sender thinks the receiver needs.

- 6.1 - this defines two methods yet says "If the protocol
operates in a benign environment the method MAY be used."
Which is meant here?

- 6.1.2.1: what if different folks think NCHUNKS_PER_SIG has
different values? How do we all agree on a value? (BTW, the
last sentence of this section is a cool thing.)

- 7.4: "In other cases a peer MAY include a swarm identifier
option, as an end-to-end check." That's not clear to me, what
other cases?

- 7.6: I don't get why you need so many options here. Do you
really?  SHA1 is probably only needed for legacy stuff (is
there any of that?), and SHA256 should be fine for everything
else.

- 7.8: The width of the figure seems wrong.

- 7.10: An example compressed encoding would be useful.

- 8.16: "perfectly detected" - huh? what does that mean?

[Ballot discuss]
I am still reading this draft, but don't see any response to the SecDir review that raised some very important points for discussion:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04879.html

I'll amend this when I get further into my review and would appreciate a response to the SecDir review.

Thanks!

[Ballot discuss]
I'm a little surprised about the choice of LEDBAT for congestion control of live streams. It seems like LEDBAT is not what the receiver would want the sender to use for live-streamed content, because if a bottleneck is encountered on the path, the live stream will yield early, and the recipient's perception of quality will degrade. If the bottleneck is near the recipient, then every sender sending chunks will yield early, and there may be no senders available to stream at an acceptable level of quality. I'm assuming the WG discussed this -- it would be helpful to understand why a more aggressive congestion control was not selected for live streaming.

[Ballot comment]
Section 1.3:
"Either a live transmission, a pre-recorded multimedia asset, or a
      file."

What is the difference between a multimedia asset and a file? Also, the term "content asset" is used in a bunch of places in the document, which makes this definition a little more confusing.

Section 4.3.1:
"When a receiving peer has successfully checked the integrity of a
  chunk or interval of chunks it MUST send a HAVE message to all peers
  it wants to interact with.  The latter allows the HAVE message to be
  used as a method of choking."
 
What does "the latter" refer to?

[Ballot comment]
In general, I found this draft very clear and understandable.  I do understand Richard's discuss that the specific message send-responses aren't given concisely, but I think it is understandable.

In Sec 4.2, section after Figure 2:
  Please s/chunk 0..3/chunk C0..C3  and s/chunks 0 and 1/s chunks C0 and C1

  This is just because I had to read it 3 times to stop being confused
  between the bin numbers and the chunk numbers, so I'd ask for
  consistency.

In Sec 5.2, first paragraph:
  Please change
  "For chunk C4 its uncles are nodes 13 and 3, marked with * in the figure." to
  "For chunk C4 its uncles are nodes 13 and 3 and its sibling is 10; all marked with a * in the figure."

In Sec 7.8, the bit figure only goes to bit 12 instead of bit 16 - but
the range of CAM and the length listed is 8.

In Sec 7.9, can you please add a reference to Table 6 where appropriate?


Sec 8.1: typo: mebibyte

Sec 8.1: The paragraph on PLPMTUD is a bit confusing.  Presumably this
is between two peers - but the chunk sizes used by the swarm would be
specified by the initial seeder.  Thus I can see the PLPMTUD variant
being useful to decide upon the PPSPP datagram size, but not the chunk
size.  Could you please clarify either what I'm missing?

Sec 8.13: typo in first line: s/PEX_RES/PEX_RESv4

[Ballot discuss]
My DISCUSS here is based mainly on the readability of the document, which seems bad enough to be an impediment to interoperability. 

As far as I can tell, this document does not define a protocol, in the sense of a set of actions required to achieve a given objective.  Instead, it presents a pile of piece parts with a couple of combinations, and notes that these combinations could be used to achieve, e.g., live streaming.  (In the language of patents, it has not been "reduced to practice".)

What are the steps an implementation follows to join a swarm?  To connect to a new peer and request chunks?  The pieces seem to be here, but the big picture is completely absent.

[Ballot comment]
"In general, no error codes or responses are used in the protocol; absence of any response indicates an error." -- This made me do a bit of a double-take.  Obviously, the requesting peer should timeout if the responding peer doesn't respond, but are there really no cases where the responding peer knows there's a problem and wants to report it?  It seems like the CHOKE message is an indication of this sort.

[Ballot comment]
Nice work.  This is a well written document, and what looks like a solid protocol.

General question on the chunking:
Is it the case that a given piece of content is chunked in a specific way, with known chunk IDs, such that every peer that's serving that content up (at least in the same swarm) uses the same chunks with the same chunk IDs?  One can guess that from the way things work, but shouldn't the document say that?  Or does it, and I missed it?

-- Section 3.7 --

  When peer Q receives multiple REQUESTs from the same peer
  P, peer Q SHOULD process the REQUESTs in the order received.

What happens if it doesn't?  Is there an interoperability issue here?  A performance issue?  Or what?  (That is, why is this a 2119 SHOULD?)

-- Section 5.3 --

  Thus, as a datagram carries zero or more messages, neither messages
  nor message interdependencies SHOULD span over multiple datagrams.

The negatives in this sentence really make the SHOULD a hidden SHOULD NOT, and its meaning is unclear.  I think it would be clearer if it were worded that way:

NEW
  Thus, as a datagram carries zero or more messages, both messages
  and message interdependencies SHOULD NOT span multiple datagrams.
END

-- Section 12.1.1 --
Nit: "setup" is a noun; "set up" is a verb.  In these two sentences, "setup" should be changed to "set up":

  A content provider wishing to use PPSPP to distribute content should
  setup at least one PPSPP server.

  In addition, a content provider should setup a tracking facility for
  the content by configuring, for example, a PPSP tracker

[Ballot comment]
The authors have an updated draft ready which addresses IANA's concerns. The updated draft will be posted after the 7/10 IESG telechat.

Here is the text proposed by IANA:
OLD:
IANA is to create the new registries defined below for the
  extensibility of the protocol.  For all registries, assignments
  consist of a name and its associated value.  Also for all registries,
  the "Unassigned" ranges designated are governed by the policy 'IETF
  Review' as described in [RFC5226].

NEW:
This document is to create a new top-level registry called
"Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)", which will host
the six new sub-registries defined below for the extensibility
of the protocol.  For all registries, assignments
  consist of a name and its associated value.  Also for all registries,
  the "Unassigned" ranges designated are governed by the policy 'IETF
  Review' as described in [RFC5226].

[Ballot comment]
There has not been a response to Christer Holmberg's Gen-ART review. Do the authors have a view on the questions he asked?

For what it is worth, when I read sections 8.14 and 8.15 they do not give as precise instruction for the implementer about how to handle keepalives and dead peer detection as I’d personally like to see. Perhaps a sentence could be added to explain what a node does (or stops doing) when it declares a peer dead.

[Ballot comment]
In this text:

3.  Messages

  In general, no error codes or responses are used in the protocol;
  absence of any response indicates an error. 

Is there accurate qualifier more narrow than "in general" that you could substitute? In a quick scan, the only other instances of "error" are "ICMP error", so maybe you don't need a qualifier at all?

In this text:

3.1.  HANDSHAKE

  After the handshakes are exchanged, the initiator knows that the peer
  really responds.  Hence, the second datagram the initiator sends MAY
  already contain some heavy payload, e.g.  DATA messages.  To minimize
  the number of initialization round-trips, the first two datagrams
  exchanged MAY also contain some minor payload, e.g.  HAVE messages to
  indicate the current progress of a peer or a REQUEST (see
  Section 3.7), but MUST NOT include any DATA message.

This was difficult for me to parse, and the words "heavy" and "minor" didn't help me understand. Is this saying something like "Peers don't include DATA messages in payloads they send unless they've akwa successfully exchanged messages"? If that's not what's meant, is there a list of "heavy" and "monor" messages? (Obviously, I don't think the MAYs are 2119 MAYs because they are so imprecise, but that's another story)

I should also mention that "heavy" appears 10 times in the specification, and I don't think it's ever defined. Is this a term famliar with those schooled in the art?

In this text:

3.2.  HAVE

  In particular, whenever a receiving peer P has successfully checked
  the integrity of a chunk, or interval of chunks, it SHOULD send a
                                                      ^^^^^^

  HAVE message to all peers Q1..Qn it wants to interact with in the
  near future.  A policy in peer P determines when the HAVE is sent.  P
  may sent it directly, or peer P may wait until either it has other
  data to sent to Qi, or until it has received and checked multiple
  chunks. 

This wasn't clear to me. I'm not understanding why a SHOULD is appropriate, but I suspect I shouldn't be askig a 2119 question, because this is tangled between "send a HAVE to the peers you want to interact with in the near future" and "if you don't want to interact with a specific peer in the near future, you can wait to send a HAVE". Is that even close?

In this text:

3.4.  ACK

  ACK messages MUST be sent to acknowledge received chunks if PPSPP is
  run over an unreliable transport protocol.  ACK messages MAY be sent
  if a reliable transport protocol is used.  In the former case, a
  receiving peer that has successfully checked the integrity of a
  chunk, or interval of chunks C MUST send an ACK message containing a
  chunk specification for C. As LEDBAT is used, an ACK message MUST
  contain the one-way delay, computed from the peer's current system
  time received in the DATA message.  A peer MAY delay sending ACK
  messages as defined in the LEDBAT specification.

(I emphasize that this is a question, not even a comment) How hard did the working group fight to pick a single style of transport protocol for PPSPP, rather than support multiple styles that don't use the same state machine? If that decision got good discussion, fine, but I wanted to ask because support for both reliable and ureliable transport adds complexity, and I've seen working groups that tried to do transport-independent protocols only because they thought that's what the ADs expected.

In this text:

5.3.  The Atomic Datagram Principle

  As explained above, a datagram consists of a sequence of messages.
  Ideally, every datagram sent must be independent of other datagrams,
  so each datagram SHOULD be processed separately and a loss of one
  datagram must not disrupt the flow of datagrams between two peers.
  Thus, as a datagram carries zero or more messages, neither messages
  nor message interdependencies SHOULD span over multiple datagrams.

  This principle implies that as any chunk is verified using its uncle
  hashes the necessary hashes SHOULD be put into the same datagram as
  the chunk's data.  If this is not possible because of a limitation on
  datagram size, the necessary hashes MUST be sent first in one or more
  datagrams.  As a general rule, if some additional data is still
  missing to process a message within a datagram, the message SHOULD be
  dropped.

With that many SHOULDs, I'd be worried that implementations using PPSPP can't count on much. If I receive a message that spans multiple datagrams (even though it shouldn't), that don't include the necessary hashes (even though it should), and I don't drop a message with missing data (even though I should), is that all fine?

In this text:

5.4.  INTEGRITY Messages

  Concretely, a peer that wants to send a chunk of content creates a
  datagram that MUST consist of a list of INTEGRITY messages followed
  by a DATA message.  If the INTEGRITY messages and DATA message cannot
  be put into a single datagram because of a limitation on datagram
  size, the INTEGRITY messages MUST be sent first in one or more
  datagrams. 

Is this assuming that the path between peers will never reorder packets?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-10.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

This is the 2nd Last Call review for this I-D.

IANA has a couple of questions for one of the requested actions in
this draft document.

IANA understands that upon approval of this document, there are six actions which IANA must complete.

IANA understands that is is being asked to create six new registries for the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP).  In each case, the registry will be maintained via IETF Review as defined in RFC 5226. In each new registry, the registrations consist of  a name, an associated value, and a reference. The following notes describe IANA's understanding of the contents of each new registry.

QUESTION: Are the authors intended to have one single top-level registry
to host these six new registries defined in this draft?  Please
see http://www.iana.org/assignments/ancp as an example, that
the ANCP registry hosts multiple sub-registries.


First, a new registry called the "PPSP Peer Protocol Message Type Registry" will be created.  Values are integers in the range 0-255.  These are the initial registrations:

+----------+------------------+---------------+
| Msg Type | Description      | Reference    |
+----------+------------------+---------------+
| 0        | HANDSHAKE        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1        | DATA            | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2        | ACK              | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3        | HAVE            | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4        | INTEGRITY        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 5        | PEX_RESv4        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 6        | PEX_REQ          | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 7        | SIGNED_INTEGRITY | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 8        | REQUEST          | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 9        | CANCEL          | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 10      | CHOKE            | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 11      | UNCHOKE          | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 12      | PEX_RESv6        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 13      | PEX_REScert      | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 14-254  | Unassigned     
| 255      | Reserved        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
+----------+------------------+---------------+
                     
Second, a new registry called the "PPSP Peer Protocol Option Registry" will be created.  Values are integers in the range 0-255.  These are the initial registrations:

+-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| Code  | Description                        | Reference    |
+-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0    | Version                            | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1    | Minimum Version                    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2    | Swarm Identifier                    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3    | Content Integrity Protection Method | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4    | Merkle Hash Tree Function          | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 5    | Live Signature Algorithm            | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 6    | Chunk Addressing Method            | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 7    | Live Discard Window                | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 8    | Supported Messages                  | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 9-254 | Unassigned                       
| 255  | End Option                          | [ RFC-to-be ] |
+-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+

Third, a new registry called the "PPSP Peer Protocol Version Number Registry" will be created.  Values are integers in the range 0-255. These are the initial registrations:

+---------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| Version | Description                            | Reference    |
+---------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 1      | Protocol as described in [ RFC-to-be ] | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2-255  | Unassigned                           
+---------+----------------------------------------+---------------+

QUESTION: Section 11.3 specifies that the values are integers in
the range 0-255.  However value 0 is not included in the above
table.  Section 7.2 (Version) does not clearly explain value 0.

What is the Description for value 0?  Should it be marked
as "Reserved" instead?

Fourth, a new registry called the "PPSP Peer Protocol Content Integrity Protection Method Registry" will be created.  Values are integers in the range 0-255.  These are the initial registrations:

+--------+-------------------------+---------------+
| Method | Description            | Reference    |
+--------+-------------------------+---------------+
| 0      | No integrity protection | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1      | Merkle Hash Tree        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2      | Sign All                | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3      | Unified Merkle Tree    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4-255  | Unassigned           
+--------+-------------------------+---------------+

Fifth, a new registry called the "PPSP Peer Protocol Merkle Hash Tree Function Registry" will be created.  Values are integers in the range 0-255.  These are the initial registrations:

+----------+-------------+---------------+
| Function | Description | Reference    |
+----------+-------------+---------------+
| 0        | SHA1        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1        | SHA-224    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2        | SHA-256    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3        | SHA-384    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4        | SHA-512    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 5-255    | Unassigned  |
+----------+-------------+---------------+

Sixth, a new registry called the "PPSP Peer Protocol Chunk Addressing Method Registry" will be created.  Values are integers in the range 0-255.  These are the initial registrations:

+--------+---------------------+---------------+
| Method | Description        | Reference    |
+--------+---------------------+---------------+
| 0      | 32-bit bins        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1      | 64-bit byte ranges  | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2      | 32-bit chunk ranges | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3      | 64-bit bins        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4      | 64-bit chunk ranges | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 5-255  | Unassigned         
+--------+---------------------+---------------+

IANA understands that these six actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.


Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Peer to Peer Streaming Protocol
WG (ppsp) to consider the following document:
- 'Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-07-01. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) is a protocol for
  disseminating the same content to a group of interested parties in a
  streaming fashion.  PPSPP supports streaming of both pre-recorded
  (on-demand) and live audio/video content.  It is based on the peer-
  to-peer paradigm, where clients consuming the content are put on
  equal footing with the servers initially providing the content, to
  create a system where everyone can potentially provide upload
  bandwidth.  It has been designed to provide short time-till-playback
  for the end user, and to prevent disruption of the streams by
  malicious peers.  PPSPP has also been designed to be flexible and
  extensible.  It can use different mechanisms to optimize peer
  uploading, prevent freeriding, and work with different peer discovery
  schemes (centralized trackers or Distributed Hash Tables).  It
  supports multiple methods for content integrity protection and chunk
  addressing.  Designed as a generic protocol that can run on top of
  various transport protocols, it currently runs on top of UDP using
  LEDBAT for congestion control.


Please note that this draft has a DOWNREF to
  [RFC6817]  Shalunov, S., Hazel, G., Iyengar, J., and M. Kuehlewind,
              "Low Extra Delay Background Transport (LEDBAT)", RFC 6817,
              December 2012.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

There is the need for an updated draft, as one issue popped up:


It is mandatory to implement LEDBAT for the PPPSP protocol. However, the reference to LEDBAT is not in the normative references. The reference to LEDBAT has to be moved to the normative part.

The draft authors have been notified.

Afterwards the IETF last call has to be repeated with explictly saying that we have a DOWNREF to LEDBAT.

This will be done after receiving the update of the draft.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here].  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

IANA's reviewer has the following comments/questions:

IANA understands that upon approval of this document, there are six actions which IANA must complete.

IANA understands that is is being asked to create six new registries for the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP).  In each case, the registry will be maintained via IETF Review as defined in RFC 5226. In each new registry, the registrations consist of  a name, an associated value, and a reference. The following notes describe IANA's understanding of the contents of each new registry.

First, a new registry called the "PPSP Peer Protocol Message Type Registry" will be created.  Values are integers in the range 0-255.  These are the initial registrations:

+----------+------------------+---------------+
| Msg Type | Description      | Reference    |
+----------+------------------+---------------+
| 0        | HANDSHAKE        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1        | DATA            | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2        | ACK              | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3        | HAVE            | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4        | INTEGRITY        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 5        | PEX_RESv4        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 6        | PEX_REQ          | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 7        | SIGNED_INTEGRITY | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 8        | REQUEST          | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 9        | CANCEL          | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 10      | CHOKE            | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 11      | UNCHOKE          | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 12      | PEX_RESv6        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 13      | PEX_REScert      | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 14-254  | Unassigned     
| 255      | Reserved        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
+----------+------------------+---------------+
                     
Second, a new registry called the "PPSP Peer Protocol Option Registry" will be created.  Values are integers in the range 0-255.  These are the initial registrations:

+-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| Code  | Description                        | Reference    |
+-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0    | Version                            | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1    | Minimum Version                    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2    | Swarm Identifier                    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3    | Content Integrity Protection Method | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4    | Merkle Hash Tree Function          | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 5    | Live Signature Algorithm            | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 6    | Chunk Addressing Method            | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 7    | Live Discard Window                | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 8    | Supported Messages                  | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 9-254 | Unassigned                       
| 255  | End Option                          | [ RFC-to-be ] |
+-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+

Third, a new registry called the "PPSP Peer Protocol Version Number Registry" will be created.  Values are integers in the range 0-255. These are the initial registrations:

+---------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| Version | Description                            | Reference    |
+---------+----------------------------------------+---------------+
| 1      | Protocol as described in [ RFC-to-be ] | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2-255  | Unassigned                           
+---------+----------------------------------------+---------------+

Fourth, a new registry called the "PPSP Peer Protocol Content Integrity Protection Method Registry" will be created.  Values are integers in the range 0-255.  These are the initial registrations:

+--------+-------------------------+---------------+
| Method | Description            | Reference    |
+--------+-------------------------+---------------+
| 0      | No integrity protection | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1      | Merkle Hash Tree        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2      | Sign All                | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3      | Unified Merkle Tree    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4-255  | Unassigned           
+--------+-------------------------+---------------+

Fifth, a new registry called the "PPSP Peer Protocol Merkle Hash Tree Function Registry" will be created.  Values are integers in the range 0-255.  These are the initial registrations:

+----------+-------------+---------------+
| Function | Description | Reference    |
+----------+-------------+---------------+
| 0        | SHA1        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1        | SHA-224    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2        | SHA-256    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3        | SHA-384    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4        | SHA-512    | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 5-255    | Unassigned  |
+----------+-------------+---------------+

Sixth, a new registry called the "PPSP Peer Protocol Chunk Addressing Method Registry" will be created.  Values are integers in the range 0-255.  These are the initial registrations:

+--------+---------------------+---------------+
| Method | Description        | Reference    |
+--------+---------------------+---------------+
| 0      | 32-bit bins        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1      | 64-bit byte ranges  | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2      | 32-bit chunk ranges | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3      | 64-bit bins        | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4      | 64-bit chunk ranges | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 5-255  | Unassigned         
+--------+---------------------+---------------+

IANA understands that these six actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Peer to Peer Streaming Protocol
WG (ppsp) to consider the following document:
- 'Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-06-16. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) is a protocol for
  disseminating the same content to a group of interested parties in a
  streaming fashion.  PPSPP supports streaming of both pre-recorded
  (on-demand) and live audio/video content.  It is based on the peer-
  to-peer paradigm, where clients consuming the content are put on
  equal footing with the servers initially providing the content, to
  create a system where everyone can potentially provide upload
  bandwidth.  It has been designed to provide short time-till-playback
  for the end user, and to prevent disruption of the streams by
  malicious peers.  PPSPP has also been designed to be flexible and
  extensible.  It can use different mechanisms to optimize peer
  uploading, prevent freeriding, and work with different peer discovery
  schemes (centralized trackers or Distributed Hash Tables).  It
  supports multiple methods for content integrity protection and chunk
  addressing.  Designed as a generic protocol that can run on top of
  various transport protocols, it currently runs on top of UDP using
  LEDBAT for congestion control.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

RFC Type: Proposed Standard.
This is a protocol specification document. RFC type is indicated in the title page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

The Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) is a protocol for disseminating the same content to a group of interested parties in a streaming fashion. PPSPP supports streaming of both pre-recorded (on-demand) and live audio/video content. It is based on the peer-to-peer paradigm, where clients consuming the content are put on equal footing with the servers initially providing the content, to create a system where everyone can potentially provide upload bandwidth. It has been designed to provide short time-till-playback for the end user, and to prevent disruption of the streams by malicious peers. PPSPP has also been designed to be flexible and extensible. It can use different mechanisms to optimize peer uploading, prevent freeriding, and work with different peer discovery schemes (centralized trackers or Distributed Hash Tables). It supports multiple methods for content integrity protection and chunk addressing. Designed as a generic protocol that can run on top of various transport protocols, it currently runs on top of UDP suing LEDBAT for congestion control.

Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

There were several issues raised during WGLC; however, none were particularly rough and authors came up with the text that resolves these issues thus consensus was achieved in all cases. After that, some technical comments were made during the AD review and all were addressed with consensus.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

This draft has some implementations and evaluations in the lab. It is expected that with the approval of this document the number of implementations will increase. During the WGLC, this draft has been deep reviewed by Riccardo Bernardini and Yunfei Zhang. The issues of protocol versioning and guideline absence on when to declare a peer dead are addressed.  The AD found some high level issues which have been already solved. One issue is that PPSPP as a Standards Track protocol cannot normatively rely on LEDBAT which is an Experimental congestion control mechanism. The problem is solved by having measurements and deployment results that show the widespread use of LEDBAT in current P2P systems and towards a DOWNREF procedure.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Rachel Huang
Responsible AD: Martin Stiemerling
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

As the Document Shepherd, I have carefully reviewed the version 09 being forwarded to IESG. In my opinion, it accurately reflects the consensus of the working group and is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has been reviewed by a number of knowledgeable participants within the PPSP WG. I don’t have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the review.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document has a security consideration chapter and a management consideration chapter. So particular reviews regarding security and operation complexity are required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

There are no such issues.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

As Document Shepherd, I have confirmed that the authors are not personally aware of any IPR related to this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG as a whole understand and agree with the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No ID nits found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No further formal review required except for a thorough review by IANA which will be conducted anyway.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,  that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The IANA Considerations section is correct and adequate. It creates 6 new IANA registries which all include detailed specification of the initial content for registry. Each of these new registries has a reasonable name.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

This document creates 6 new IANA registries. Each of them should be carefully reviewed for future allocations by IANA experts.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No such formal language is used in this document.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

RFC Type: Proposed Standard.
This is a protocol specification document. RFC type is indicated in the title page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

The Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) is a protocol for disseminating the same content to a group of interested parties in a streaming fashion. PPSPP supports streaming of both pre-recorded (on-demand) and live audio/video content. It is based on the peer-to-peer paradigm, where clients consuming the content are put on equal footing with the servers initially providing the content, to create a system where everyone can potentially provide upload bandwidth. It has been designed to provide short time-till-playback for the end user, and to prevent disruption of the streams by malicious peers. PPSPP has also been designed to be flexible and extensible. It can use different mechanisms to optimize peer uploading, prevent freeriding, and work with different peer discovery schemes (centralized trackers or Distributed Hash Tables). It supports multiple methods for content integrity protection and chunk addressing. Designed as a generic protocol that can run on top of various transport protocols, it currently runs on top of UDP suing LEDBAT for congestion control.

Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

There were several issues raised during WGLC; however, none were particularly rough and authors came up with the text that resolves these issues thus consensus was achieved in all cases. After that, some technical comments were made during the AD review and all were addressed with consensus.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

This draft has some implementations and evaluations in the lab. It is expected that with the approval of this document the number of implementations will increase. During the WGLC, this draft has been deep reviewed by Riccardo Bernardini and Yunfei Zhang. The issues of protocol versioning and guideline absence on when to declare a peer dead are addressed.  The AD found some high level issues which have been already solved. One issue is that PPSPP as a Standards Track protocol cannot normatively rely on LEDBAT which is an Experimental congestion control mechanism. The problem is solved by having measurements and deployment results that show the widespread use of LEDBAT in current P2P systems and towards a DOWNREF procedure.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Document Shepherd: Rachel Huang
Responsible AD: Martin Stiemerling
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

As the Document Shepherd, I have carefully reviewed the version 09 being forwarded to IESG. In my opinion, it accurately reflects the consensus of the working group and is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has been reviewed by a number of knowledgeable participants within the PPSP WG. I don’t have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the review.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

This document has a security consideration chapter and a management consideration chapter. So particular reviews regarding security and operation complexity are required.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

There are no such issues.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

As Document Shepherd, I have confirmed that the authors are not personally aware of any IPR related to this document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG as a whole understand and agree with the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

No ID nits found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No further formal review required except for a thorough review by IANA which will be conducted anyway.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,  that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The IANA Considerations section is correct and adequate. It creates 6 new IANA registries which all include detailed specification of the initial content for registry. Each of these new registries has a reasonable name.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

This document creates 6 new IANA registries. Each of them should be carefully reviewed for future allocations by IANA experts.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No such formal language is used in this document.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Proposed Standard. A standardized PPSP Peer Protocol is a requirement for interoperable implementations.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

From the Abstract section of the draft:
The Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) is a transport protocol for disseminating the same content to a group of interested parties in a streaming fashion.  PPSPP supports streaming of both pre-recorded (on-demand) and live audio/video content.  It is based on the peer-to-peer paradigm, where clients consuming the content are put on equal footing with the servers initially providing the content, to create a system where everyone can potentially provide upload bandwidth.  It has been designed to provide short time-till-playback for the end user and to prevent disruption of the streams by malicious peers.  PPSPP has also been designed to be flexible and extensible.  It can use different mechanisms to optimize peer uploading, prevent free riding, and work with different peer discovery schemes (centralized trackers or Distributed Hash Tables).  It supports multiple methods for content integrity protection and chunk addressing.  Designed as a generic protocol that can run on top on various transport protocols, it currently runs on top of UDP using LEDBAT for congestion control.

Working Group Summary:

We are at version -06 of the document. One of the main topics that the WG has discussed is related to the addressing of the chunks. After a round of discussions the WG agreed on the latest proposal and a very large WG consensus has been reached. During WG last call period the WG raised a few minor issues that have been fixed and incorporated to the last version of the document.
In addition, and after AD review, the authors improved substantially the Operation and Management section in order to reflect the requirements expressed in draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol?
We have one implementation of the PPSP Peer Protocol that has been demonstrated during the IETF-84 and IETF-85 meetings.
Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
Not at this stage.
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?
Yunfei Zhang (WG co-chair) and Martin Stiemerling (AD).
If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd?
Stefano Previdi
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Martin Stiemerling

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

In addition to the WG review, an in depth review has been done by the Document Shepherd and with help of the Responsible Area Director.
Review has pointed out mostly:
. editorial aspect of the draft content.
. Addition of a Operation and Management section
. Addition of a IANA Consideration section

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No. In depth review has been consistently done by the WG.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
Despite the effort of all reviewers, we don’t think any native-English speaker/reader/writer person has reviewed the draft from an editorial perspective.
Security and Operation&Management sections have been reviewed but probably needs expert review.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
Since no English-native speaker/writer has reviewed the document we may have missed editorial/grammar typo’s.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes. All authors confirmed IPR disclosure status (i.e.: no IPR exists).

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
A substantial amount of people explicitly expressed their support to this document so we can say that we have a large and active WG consensus. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
idnits 2.12.15  tmp/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-06.txt:   
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------     
No issues found here.    Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------     
No issues found here.    Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------   
== There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the      document.    Miscellaneous warnings: 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------     
No issues found here.    Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------     
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)    -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS180-3'    -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref.      'IANADNSSECALGNUM'        Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).      Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about      the items above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
We had a concern about LEDBAT (Experimental RFC6817) and moved the reference to the “Informative Reference” section.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
I think the draft is missing the registry name for PPSP. The code points that are required are in accordance to the protocol specification.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
The authors would require a new registry to IANA for PPSP protocol messages. Any IANA expert review is welcome.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
checks has been done through the usual tools: xml2rfc and idnits.