Subject: [decade] WG review of draft-ietf-decade-survey-02

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:18:53 -0500

Please find my review for draft-ietf-decade-survey-02 below.

Overall, I think the document is in good shape. As a survey, it
provides a good cross section of the space, provides some commentary
without making any specific decisions or imposing a particular view,
and is clear and concise. I have very few technical comments or
concerns, but a fair number of small nits and grammatical/editorial
comments.

The author list at the end and the list on the header don't agree. The
header has 3 authors, the end has 6.

Section 3.0: just before 3.1 you talk about not discussing protocol
choices in the current version of this document. Since this is going
to RFC, that comment should be removed (just mention that you don't
cover that...)

Section 3.4 seems like a key concept isn't quite there or isn't
explained clearly. The three categories -- public-restricted,
public-unrestricted and private are not clearly explained with regard
to read vs. write. The example for public-restricted of TV restricted
to a geographical region implies that this is for reading access, but
it seems to be private in terms or write access. Might want a
clarification sentence or two here about how you are using the term.

For 4.11.1, it would be good to have a reference here about P2P caches
being widely deployed. I actually thought that many ISPs found it too
difficult to do and so didn't use these protocol-specific caches. Can
we cite some evidence that they are widely deployed?

Nits / grammar:

In the introduction, second paragraph, replace on with of. Not t a
"substantial increase on capacity". Maybe "substantial increase of
capacity"?

Intro, para 3, line 1: introduced should be introduces

2.2, para 1, line 2: reducing should be reduce

2.2 para 4, line 1: replace only with just. Line 7 replace first is with are.

2.2 para 6, line 1 maturity should be maturation. Last sentence needs
"the" after however.

4.1.1 last line need "the" between update and contents.

4.2 para 4 line 4 "...server it is..." should be "server if it is"

In Section 4.4, the grammatical use of CDN is inconsistent. When
talking about a property, sometimes it is "a CDN does X", sometimes
"CDN does X" and sometimes "CDNs do X". I think the first and third
("a CDN" and "CDNs") seem right, but it should be consistent in any
case.

4.4 para 2 line 5 to should be for

4.4 para 3 line 1 host should be hosts

The first sentence of 4.4.2 is really awkward. Maybe "CDNs are
typically closed internal systems, and generally only provide read
(retrieve) access and not write (store) access to clients."?

4.4.3 line 1 provider should be providers. The use of data here (with
one in front of it)  is strange too -- maybe call it data object
instead?

4.4.4 provider should be providers, and hold should be holds (or even
better, stores?)

4.4.8 "they also can" seems like it should be removed.

4.7 information-centric and host-centric are not consistently
hyphenated (sometimes yes, sometimes no...)

4.11.2.6 line 1 need "is" between mechanism and provided. line 3 "P2P
cache is getting" should be "P2P caches are getting"

4.13 well-built seems odd here. "proven" maybe?

4.13.2 line 3 need is between that and not.

5.5.4 para 3, "passed" should be "past"

Several of the references (for example [1]) are out of date.

---

From: "Rahman, Akbar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:23:24 -0500

Hi David,

Thanks for your comments.  I will work with the other authors and do an
update of the draft based on your suggestions by early January. 

Sincerely,

Akbar

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
David A. Bryan
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 12:19 PM
To: DECADE; Richard Alimi; Y. R. Yang; Rahman, Akbar
Cc: Haibin Song; Woundy, Richard
Subject: WG review of draft-ietf-decade-survey-02

Nits / grammar:

2.2 para 4, line 1: replace only with just. Line 7 replace first is with
are.

---

From: "Rahman, Akbar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 11:30:40 -0500

Thanks for your comments.  I will work with the other authors and do an update of the draft based on your suggestions by early January. 

Sincerely,

Akbar

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 10:54 PM
To: 'David A. Bryan'; 'DECADE'; 'Richard Alimi'; 'Y. R. Yang'; Rahman, Akbar
Cc: 'Woundy, Richard'
Subject: 答复: [decade] WG review of draft-ietf-decade-survey-02

Hi, I give some comments about deployment of P2P caches.

.......

==================================
As I know, Xunlei, the largest download service provider in China, has
helped ISPs (especially some local broadband network access SP ) deploy 
many P2P cache-nodes in their network to accelerate the download speed for 
users belong to these ISPs.

It's difficult that ISPs deploy these protocol-specific caches themsleves, 
but if the P2P Service Providers help them to do such things, ISPs are glad
to 
reduce the cross traffic caused by P2P applications. 
==================================

Nits / grammar:
......
_______________________________________________
decade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/decade