Re: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update

I will do some simulations to determine which chunk addressing mechanism performs best in the average case.

Fabio

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> stefano previdi
> Sent: lundi 4 juin 2012 11:39
> To: ppsp; zhangyunfei Zhang
> Subject: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update
> 
> 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
> ppsp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp