Re: [ppsp] ***SPAM*** 8.616 (5) Re: 答复: Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding

"Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com> Mon, 24 November 2014 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF081A1B79 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:49:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HfAAd6aedx4e for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:49:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 619171A1A1D for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:49:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPD14929; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 01:49:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 01:49:01 +0000
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.193]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 24 Nov 2014 09:48:53 +0800
From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>
To: Dave Cottlehuber <dch@skunkwerks.at>, "ppsp@ietf.org" <ppsp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ppsp] ***SPAM*** 8.616 (5) Re: 答复: Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding
Thread-Index: AQHQBF8XNIjm5r2TjkCJyvyQq9ZKEpxqkBAAgARw3nA=
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 01:48:53 +0000
Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB8625E9B3@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779661DB7CE@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <00b001cfff9b$6109f510$231ddf30$@com> <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779661DBBB1@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <201411200912520787195@bjtu.edu.cn> <etPan.546f3eb2.6b8b4567.bc5b@akai.skunkwerks.at>
In-Reply-To: <etPan.546f3eb2.6b8b4567.bc5b@akai.skunkwerks.at>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.144]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/1TQ1HKes6bWO6cx2U7XzGWhKrt8
Subject: Re: [ppsp] ***SPAM*** 8.616 (5) Re: 答复: Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 24 Nov 2014 01:49:06 -0000

Hi Dave,

IMO, tracker protocol is only about the signaling of peer information, rather than content communications as for the peer protocol. There's no big data exchanging in tracker protocol. So I don't think binary has more advantages than text encoding. In fact, since we use HTTP over TCP as the transport protocol for tracker protocol (perfect solution for NAT traversal, not because we're going to design a HTTP server), it's better to use text encoding for easy understanding. Besides, you can easily find protocols specified in IETF transport area, like alto protocol, using text encoding. 

BR,
Rachel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppsp [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Cottlehuber
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 9:32 PM
> To: ppsp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ppsp] ***SPAM*** 8.616 (5) Re: 答复: Call for WG consensus on
> Tracker Protocol encoding
> 
> > >Hi, Lingli,
> > >
> > >Yunfei and I are working on roadmap of all I-Ds in PPSP, and will post on the
> list soon.
> > >
> > >The poll for encoding will be open till the *end of next week*.
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >
> > >-Ning
> 
> Given we are writing a *transport* protocol and not an http server, I would opt
> for binary encoding as mandatory. Optional text encoding if necessary.
> 
> The more fat we mix into the the tracker protocol, the less useful it becomes.
> 
> —
> Dave Cottlehuber
> dch@skunkwerks.at
> +43 688 60 56 21 44
> Sent from the Cloud
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ppsp mailing list
> ppsp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp