Thank you, Enrico. We have incorporated your comments into -06, available now at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-livingood-woundy-p4p-experiences-0 6.txt
Regards Jason On 5/6/09 12:11 PM, "Enrico Marocco" <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the draft is in a good shape and, even if not a product of the > WG, would make for an informational document useful for ALTO too. > However, there are still a few things that should be taken care of. > > > GENERAL COMMENTS > > Terminology: text in Abstract and Introduction sections (S. 2.) seems to > use the term "P4P" to refer to the DCIA initiative and the term > "iTracker" for the technology. However, in the reminder of the document > both terms are used to refer to the technology; this could generate > confusion, especially now that "P4P" is also the name of a solution > proposed in this working group, a solution derived by the one evaluated > in the trial the document describes, but not the same one. I would > suggest to revise the terminology in the draft and replace the term > "P4P" with "iTracker" whenever it is used to indicate the technology. I > would also suggest (see comments about S. 2.) to add an informative > reference to the SIGCOMM paper describing the solution tested in the trial. > > Different iTrackers: in S. 3. the four types of iTracker evaluated in > the trial are introduced, but not described. Accurate descriptions are > quite strangely proposed later in the text (S. 5.), after their actual > evaluation; I think that moving such descriptions before the results (S. > 4.) would improve the readability. Also, I recall from Minneapolis (and > the minutes from the meeting seem to reflect that) that the "random" > approach does not really consist of a random selection, rather it is the > native approach Pando clients would follow without P4P support. If that > is the case, it may make sense using a different name ("native"?) for > that approach. > > > Section 2. Introduction > > P4P's so-called "iTracker" technology was conceptually discussed with > the IETF at the Peer to Peer Infrastructure (P2Pi) Workshop held on > May 22, 2008, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). > > I would add two informative references here, to some document describing > the technology actually evaluated in the trial (10.1145/1402946.1402999, > e.g.) and to the workshop report (draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report-01, > in IESG evaluation). > > video file as in order to measure the effectiveness of P4P iTrackers. > > s/as in order to/in order to/ > > > Section 4.2. Impact on Downloads, or Downstream Traffic > > However, we did notice that download activity in our access network > increased somewhat, from 56,030 MB for Random, to 59,765 MB for P4P > Generic Weight, and 60,781 MB for P4P Coarse Grained. Note that for > each swarm, the number of downloaded bytes our logs report is very > close to the number of downloaders multiplied by file size. But they > do not exactly match due to log report errors and duplicated chunks. > One factor contributing to the differences in access network download > activity is that different swarms have different numbers of > downloaders due to random variations during uniform random assignment > of downloaders to swarms (see Table 1). One interesting observation > is that Random has higher cancellation rate (3.17%) than that of the > guided swarms (1.77% to 2.22%). Whether guided swarms achieve lower > cancellation rate is an interesting issue for future investigation. > > This text is repeated word-by-word in the following section (S. 4.3.); > I'd suggest to remove it. If you agree to do this change, I'd also > suggest to change the title of the section to "Impacts on Downloads" and > to add a paragraph to describe the data show in Table 2, just as the > remove paragraph did for Table 1. > > > Section 4.3. Other Impacts and Interesting Data > > The section is actually about the impacts on the traffic (i.e. what the > ISP cares about), as opposed to the previous section that was about the > impacts on the downloads (i.e. what users care about); I'd suggest to > make the dichotomy explicit changing the title to something like > "Impacts on upstream and downstream traffic." _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
