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

Wangdanhua <wangdanhua@huawei.com> Wed, 12 September 2012 06:15 UTC

Return-Path: <wangdanhua@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 F080A21F8551 for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 nr43VeFLuGwG for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C471D21F8550 for <DECADE@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AJO86863; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:14:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:13:44 +0100
Received: from SZXEML417-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.156) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 07:13:47 +0100
Received: from SZXEML507-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.120]) by szxeml417-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.156]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:13:24 +0800
From: Wangdanhua <wangdanhua@huawei.com>
To: "DECADE@ietf.org" <DECADE@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Open Issue-3 (draft "An HTTP-based DECADE Resource Protocol")
Thread-Index: Ac2QrbZ/PXLu2UrYSaS5JxQFT3PHzA==
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:13:24 +0000
Message-ID: <AFD688AF30E249418739DBDC55B9C75B34D7C3B4@SZXEML507-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.177]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AFD688AF30E249418739DBDC55B9C75B34D7C3B4SZXEML507MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: [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 06:15:02 -0000

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