[ppsp] Progress on core tracker protocol?

[Johan Pouwelse <[e-mail]>]

There was agreement for the need to create a core tracker protocol. Any
progress to report, since last month?
What do you think of my proposal below for the focus of this
really-limited-to-the-core protocol?


This document specifies the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol--Core
Tracker Protocol (PPSP-CTP), an application-layer control protocol for
facilitating Peer-2-Peer streaming. This core protocol is limited to a peer
discovery request message and reply message.
The PPSP-CTP protocol is limited to the GET-PEERS message and subsequent
reply with a peer list. This core protocol is the only requirement for a
simple streaming service, along with the PPSP peer protocol. We refer to an
upcoming Extended Tracker Protocol for more sophisticated features. For
instance,  the exchange of meta information, content information,
statistics reporting, etc.


 -johan.
On Tuesday, June 5, 2012, Rui Cruz wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The Tracker Protocol is  being split to a base specification draft and to
> extensions.
> We hope to have the base specification submitted in a couple of weeks.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rui Cruz
> [e-mail] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[e-mail]');>
>
> IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal
> __________________________________________
> ppsp mailing list
> [e-mail] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[e-mail]');>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
>
> On 04/06/2012, at 10:39, stefano previdi wrote:
>
> All,
>
> here are some notes i preparation of the next PPSP meeting we're
> going to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html)
>
> 1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism
>   We currently have two proposals that I'd try to name as:
> . Bin Notation
> . Ranges
>   Both proposals have been discussed in the mailing list and it
>   looks to me we're NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any of
>   them also due to lack of participation of the WG into the
>   discussion (other than the authors of each proposal).
>
>   Therefore, as of today, we can reasonably explore the
>   following options:
>   Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer protocol
>             specification and we define them both MANDATORY so
>             to cope with interoperability issues.
>   Option-2: we select one option through a WG vote (this is my
>             least preferred option).
>
>   Since I'd really prefer to avoid Option-2, I can only consider
>   the "dual" specification. WG opinion on this is requested.
>
>   Again, it would be very beneficial to the WG if current
>   implementors of streaming protocols would/could speak-up and
>   give their opinion (see point 4 below).
>
> 2. Peer Protocol - Security Section
>   The IESG will not accept any protocol specification without a
>   consistent security section (IOW: way more than what we
>   currently have) although there are some arguments on whether
>   we need the security mechanisms in the base spec.
>
>   Arno and Zong Ning proposed some text and we need to agree/amend
>   it asap so to update the draft. I'd like to close this one and
>   have a new version of the draft for next meeting.
>
> 3. Tracker Protocol
>   After IETF83 we agreed to split into two distinct drafts: base
>   specification and optional extensions.
>
>   Authors, it would be good to have a first submission before next
>   meeting.
>
> 4. Survey draft.
>   We need to refresh/re-submit and the chairs proposed the
>   authors/editors to include a section on deployment experiences
>   and more precisely on chunk addressing and security mechanisms.
>   Hopefully this will also feed ongoing discussions.
>
> 5. Meeting during IETF84.
>   We have requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone
>   interested, please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or
>   myself.
>
> Let us know if anything is missing.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Stefano & Yunfei
> _______________________________________________
> ppsp mailing list
> [e-mail] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[e-mail]');>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
>
>
>