Re: [ppsp] Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding

"Roni Even" <> Thu, 13 November 2014 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1771A8864 for <>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:11:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CjdjptEEH7GC for <>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:11:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C5851ACE7E for <>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y19so6829912wgg.21 for <>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:11:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:thread-index:content-language; bh=EiPvb9CBdwjnjlbECJr2r5qeFL7jdxNiJk8u9ImqXTA=; b=U7T8s0LtGpMANBQf/FRvTa0h/ipc8WpnVK7ibuAe0BEvaf+gURb6sPfCrR0TJrMS4q gzxA3BY9prAeB0CEzveofjAJuzIPUrd1oGPL2WCgN8baSsobzIFiXChp8h8QnlctcGeY mgAAVgcM3BzfhixLOAxJWor6YsdH+3o68Wj1ppdGb5hUsm9yQK03ksbvkHKOzDBLk/r4 fRQw/bvNBTYw0UQgLkF6eklWXus0UbC2nMxpH9fhS3aCwY0+oA1ALOAz4+8SK4p0OvUI 5EQVbGF88b4JdEKHUw1n4ijxjWZz/jl+4BzKLMWFBgRjRlbJ7rIcV/iAWQSUiBa8MZuE I3tg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id hc2mr6963875wjc.75.1415909494412; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:11:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from RoniE ( [2001:67c:370:160:596d:805d:6ecd:b447]) by with ESMTPSA id mw7sm619147wib.14.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:11:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Roni Even <>
To: 'Zongning' <>,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 22:11:26 +0200
Message-ID: <025401cfff7e$04237af0$0c6a70d0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0255_01CFFF8E.C7AD0E40"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQLUwHeA1mhaz0Gwuvo5VWPgyIX6YppVeWTA
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [ppsp] Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:11:54 -0000


Text encoding make sense for me. JSON can be used.


Roni Even




From: ppsp [] On Behalf Of Zongning
Sent: 13 November, 2014 4:28 AM
Subject: [ppsp] Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding


Hi, all,


Firstly, thanks to the co-authors of Base Tracker Protocol for persistently
moving the draft forward.


Now the outstanding issue is that as a Standard Track document, we really
NEED to agree on a mandatory encoding for the interoperable on-the-wire
Tracker Protocol. As discussed in the PPSP session today, we will start WGLC
for the draft, provided that we can reach a rough consensus on the encoding
option and the co-authors revise the draft accordingly.


Currently we have two options mentioned in the draft - they are text based
and binary based. For an exemplary comparison, please see Section 3.1 in the
draft. Could folks in the group give their opinions on which encoding option
is preferred for Tracker Protocol, and why? People are welcome to give other
options beyond text and binary, but please do show us the reason for
choosing them.


The during of this call will not last too long, before the co-chairs will
make a decision. So, please do contribute your technical expertise in this
perspective, to enlight the group.




-Yunfei & Ning