Re: [decade] Open Issue-3 (draft "An HTTP-based DECADE Resource Protocol")

Zongning <zongning@huawei.com> Wed, 12 September 2012 06:47 UTC

Return-Path: <zongning@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: decade@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: decade@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F4021F854E for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s9mBwO0ymZaB for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B6C21F8533 for <DECADE@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AJO89510; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:47:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:47:44 +0100
Received: from SZXEML427-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.35) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:47:52 +0100
Received: from SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.206]) by szxeml427-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.35]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:47:39 +0800
From: Zongning <zongning@huawei.com>
To: Wangdanhua <wangdanhua@huawei.com>, "DECADE@ietf.org" <DECADE@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [decade] Open Issue-3 (draft "An HTTP-based DECADE Resource Protocol")
Thread-Index: Ac2QrbZ/PXLu2UrYSaS5JxQFT3PHzAABJeDg
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:47:38 +0000
Message-ID: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC66677924AE6296@szxeml504-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <AFD688AF30E249418739DBDC55B9C75B34D7C3B4@SZXEML507-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <AFD688AF30E249418739DBDC55B9C75B34D7C3B4@SZXEML507-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.38]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC66677924AE6296szxeml504mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [decade] Open Issue-3 (draft "An HTTP-based DECADE Resource Protocol")
X-BeenThere: decade@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "To start the discussion on DECoupled Application Data Enroute, to discuss the in-network data storage for p2p applications and its access protocol" <decade.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/decade>, <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/decade>
List-Post: <mailto:decade@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/decade>, <mailto:decade-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:47:59 -0000

Hi, Danhua,

I support adopting the naming scheme proposed in draft-farrell-decede-ni as well.
Thanks.

-Ning

From: decade-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:decade-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wangdanhua
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:13 PM
To: DECADE@ietf.org
Subject: [decade] Open Issue-3 (draft "An HTTP-based DECADE Resource Protocol")


Hi all,

The following is the third open issue left for "An HTTP-based DECADE Resource Protocol" (draft-wang-drp). We're looking forward to your opinions and comments.

About the object naming scheme used in DECADE Protocol, we're inclined to adopting the naming scheme proposed in the draft-farrell-decade-ni (Naming Things with Hashes). We thought it's a good scheme and we are planning to have a try and see whether it's workable in the protocol we proposed.

Does anybody have other opinions? And we'd like to hear your voice.

Best wishes,
Danhua Wang