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: Informational.
This document is to survey some of the most popular Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
streaming applications on the Internet, mainly focusing on the signaling and
control protocol to become reference when desiginging and implementing the PPSP
protocols. 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:
This document presents a survey of some of the most popular Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
streaming applications on the Internet. The main selection criteria have been
popularity and availability of information on operation details at writing
time. In doing this, selected applications are not reviewed as a whole, but
they are reviewed with main focus on the signaling and control protocol used to
establish and maintain overlay connections among peers and to advertise and
download streaming content.
Working Group Summary:
There were several technical and editorial comments raised during WGLC;
however, none were particularly tough and authors came up with the text that
resolves these issues thus consensus was achieved in all cases.
Document Quality:
This document has enrolled some sophisticated authors during the update process
for about several years. The draft has undergone two rouds of WGLCs and
espically been carefully reviewed by the former PPSP co-chair, Stefano Previdi.
During the WGLC, many solid contents on Tribler and QQLive survey, as well as
the seurity considerations section have been supplemented. As a survey draft,
the draft doesn’t have any problems on implementations, MIB or new Media Type.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Yunfei Zhang
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 07 being
forwarded to IESG and have sent some comments on the structure, wording as well
as some editorial issues and the authors have updated the version 08 to reflect
these comments. In my opinion, the current version 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.
NO.
(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?
YES.
(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 is required as this is a survey document.
(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).
This document has no actions for IANA as a survey draft.
(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 has no actions for IANA as a survey draft.
(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.