Comcast's ISP Experiences in a Proactive Network Provider Participation for P2P (P4P) Technical Trial
draft-livingood-woundy-p4p-experiences-10
Yes
(Cullen Jennings)
(Lisa Dusseault)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Lars Eggert)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2009-07-02)
Unknown
This is great document and excellent input for the WG efforts. I do have one question though, and that relates to the complex selection process and "economics" of p2p peer selection. Basically, there is a large number of variables that one has to take into account when selecting a peer or evaluating the effectiveness of a peer selection algorithm. In particular, download speed or localization is not the only metric to follow. For instance, the ability to spread the content in the Internet, grow the swarm, and retain the most rare segments of data are also important. I would be curious if the experiment provided any information with regards to possible negative effects of focusing on localization as the key startup connection criteria? Or lack thereof. (FWIW, I do not agree with the requirement raised in IESG discussion about more extensive security considerations section.)
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-07-02)
Unknown
I support Tim's DISCUSS. I think that RFC 2223 requires all RFCs to have a Security Considerations sections. If security content is null for this document it should explain why.
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown