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.