Report from the IETF Workshop on Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Infrastructure, May 28, 2008
draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report-01
Yes
(Cullen Jennings)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Ralph Droms)
(Russ Housley)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2009-05-07)
Unknown
Good that we get the report out. This seminar was one of the most useful additional events organized by IETF, it clearly had an impact. A couple of comments on the draft, however: I felt that it would have been useful to make a bolder statement in Section 2 about this problem being restricted to P2P. The general issue is: if end users are migrating (for whatever reason and for whatever application) to more "always on" type of traffic, this has a fundamental impact on whether statistical multiplexing is a viable form of building networks in the future. At the end of the day, you have to give customers what they want (for a reasonable price to you and them), not try to block them from doing, say, 24x7 surveillance apps, P2P, or IPTV. IMHO, Section 4 does not give full justice to what Stanislav was speaking about. It paints the issue in terms of damaging neighbours, when Stanislav was saying that its even in the best interest of the P2P applications to behave nicely, because they may hurt even the person running them, if you are behind the congested DSL modem/router in your home and both the P2P and web apps suffer from the latency. The appendix on agenda should probably list the speaker's names, too. Given the nature of unstable URLs, I think it would be useful to list the titles of the position papers in the RFC itself.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-05-06)
Unknown
The header says "Intended status: Standards Track". I don't believe this is correct. 5.1.3. Multi-Layer Tracker-Based Architecture [...] Inasmuch as the multi-layer scheme might require ISPs to aid peers in s/Inasmuch/In as much finding the optimal paths to unauthorized copies of copyrighted content, ISPs may be concerned about the legal liability of participating.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-05-06)
Unknown
Typo in appendix B: s/Eric Pescorla/Eric Rescorla/
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-05-05)
Unknown
Appendix D references a page on the tools wiki. Once this draft is published we should consider marking that page somehow to remind future maintainers that an RFC points to it (so they would know to perhaps submit an errata if the page had to be moved away for instance).
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown