Re: [decade] Open Issue-2 (draft "An HTTP-based DECADE Resource Protocol").

Songhaibin <haibin.song@huawei.com> Mon, 10 September 2012 07:19 UTC

Return-Path: <haibin.song@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 BB84721F84CF for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
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 zuri5WykDDHk for <decade@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C8F21F846E for <DECADE@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:19:43 -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 AJM85214; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:19:42 +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; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:18:21 +0100
Received: from SZXEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.32) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:19:20 +0100
Received: from SZXEML534-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.70]) by szxeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:19:02 +0800
From: Songhaibin <haibin.song@huawei.com>
To: Wangdanhua <wangdanhua@huawei.com>, "DECADE@ietf.org" <DECADE@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?gb2312?B?T3BlbiBJc3N1ZS0yIKOoZHJhZnQgIkFuIEhUVFAtYmFzZWQgREVDQURFIFJl?= =?gb2312?B?c291cmNlIFByb3RvY29sIqOpLg==?=
Thread-Index: Ac2LQ14Nke+22TPoQViTkmz/bcyL0wD4QvNg
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:19:02 +0000
Message-ID: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F23B2E06D@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <AFD688AF30E249418739DBDC55B9C75B34D7A07B@SZXEML507-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <AFD688AF30E249418739DBDC55B9C75B34D7A07B@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: [10.138.41.123]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F23B2E06Dszxeml534mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [decade] =?gb2312?b?T3BlbiBJc3N1ZS0yIKOoZHJhZnQgIkFuIEhUVFAtYmFz?= =?gb2312?b?ZWQgREVDQURFIFJlc291cmNlIFByb3RvY29sIqOpLg==?=
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: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:19:44 -0000

Hi Danhua,

That’s a good point. I feel that’s the consensus in the mailing list.

-Haibin

From: decade-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:decade-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wangdanhua
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 4:50 PM
To: DECADE@ietf.org
Subject: [decade] Open Issue-2 (draft "An HTTP-based DECADE Resource Protocol").

Hi all,

The following is another open issue left for “An HTTP-based DECADE Resource Protocol” (draft-wang-drp). We’re looking forward to your opinions and comments.

Since IETF 83rd in Pairs, we received a lot of comments on the defining of “REMOTE_GET_Object Message” from WG as well as mailing list discussion. The main idea includes 1) not introduce new HTTP headers, let alone new message types; 2) leverage the base functionality of a “non-transparent proxy” in DECADE, local DECADE Server to act as a non-transparent proxy when processing a request from a DECADE Client. We adopted WG’s suggestion and already updated the draft (see “Section 8. Remote_Get_Object Message” in the draft). We need more review and comments to see whether we could make further effort.

Thanks!

Best wishes,
Danhua