Re: [ppsp] tickets for IETF 83

Picconi Fabio <Fabio.Picconi@technicolor.com> Mon, 14 May 2012 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <Fabio.Picconi@technicolor.com>
X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7735121F8551 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.617, BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e+CxD8G+PvRD for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys009aog136.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog136.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.85]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62BA521F8565 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MOPESEDGE01.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob136.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT7D1ydsc4DxoO3H7Mh0JEeeB7Jo3z6xH@postini.com; Mon, 14 May 2012 05:08:45 PDT
Received: from MOPESMAILHC02.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.29) by mail3.technicolor.com (141.11.253.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.192.1; Mon, 14 May 2012 14:04:38 +0200
Received: from MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.1.225]) by MOPESMAILHC02.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.29]) with mapi; Mon, 14 May 2012 14:04:39 +0200
From: Picconi Fabio <Fabio.Picconi@technicolor.com>
To: zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com>, ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:04:38 +0200
Thread-Topic: [ppsp] tickets for IETF 83
Thread-Index: Ac0pCk8oIQZxhAokQ0OzXYdJcItKZQIvJK8A
Message-ID: <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204EB1CD469@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
References: <2012050316123830359558@chinamobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <2012050316123830359558@chinamobile.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204EB1CD469MOPESMBX01eut_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [ppsp] tickets for IETF 83
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol <ppsp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ppsp>, <mailto:ppsp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ppsp>
List-Post: <mailto:ppsp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ppsp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp>, <mailto:ppsp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:08:48 -0000

Hi,
Somme comments:
Ticket #1 (chunk addressing mechanism). See my email send today.
Ticket #2. I can’t remember what this was about. :-)
Ticket #3 (secure PEX): I think that we can stick to a simple PEX mechanism that can be augmented by an optional secure algorithm. In addition to the solution proposed by Arno, there is a simple mechanism described by Jesi et al. [1].
Ticket #4 (FIND use case). I don’t recall exactly the details of this issue. If it’s only motivating a request to the tracker to find peers subject to attribute constraints, then finding peers with a similar upload capacity (to speed up the discovery phase) is already a good motivation.
Ticket #5 (additional messages). I think the proponents of these messages should describe the use cases where these messages can be useful.
Cheers,
Fabio
[1] G.P. Jesi, A. Montresor, and M. van Steen. Secure Peer Sampling. In Computer Networks, 2010.

From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of zhangyunfei
Sent: jeudi 3 mai 2012 10:13
To: ppsp
Subject: [ppsp] tickets for IETF 83

Hi all,
    I have summarized an initial tickets list for IETF 83 meeting. Please review it and actions on these tickets are expected. Thanks.

BR
Yunfei &Stefano
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peer protocol:
Ticket #1:Post and discuss the alternative proposal besides MHT in peer protocol (Proposal 10+13), list intervals (Tradeoff among complexity / overhead / efficiency / implementation) and check gaps. [Martin, Yunfei, Fabio, Lichun]
This ticket is partly solved. Simple nature number addressing and ranged expression on chunk availability. The analysis and comparison is ongoing. I'd suggest to have a deadline for the resolution time after discussing with Stefano, i.e.,  May 26th from now on to make the decision in the WG level.

Ticket #2:Discuss the possible “"state-building attacks" attack on peers.[Martin](related Proposal 26)
Martin, Do you still have concerns on this? If nobody shows up, we propose to close this ticket.

Ticket #3: Discuss the Membership certificates impact on the tracker’s workload.[Fabio](related to Proposal 17+20)

Tracker protocol:
Ticket#4: Specify the FIND use case and reduce the overhead to the tracker.[Martin,Yunfei,Fabio,Richardo]
Ticket#5: Discuss concrete use cases of additional messages if there are(e.g.,reconnect and rejoin) , and conclude the basic messages and optional ones in tracker protocol. [Mark, Fabio]
 We propose to the tracker protocol authors to address their tickets with a splitting of their proposal:
. base spec
. additional options.

Survey
Ticket#6: Call for reviewers for survey draft, and maybe P2P streaming providers’ contribution on updating the draft.

________________________________
zhangyunfei