[ppsp] comments on draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-03.txt

zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com> Fri, 02 November 2012 08:29 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.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 71ABC21F97F9 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 01:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.623
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AAJlRfR95dWW for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 01:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7766921F9752 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 01:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC64E53C; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:29:55 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291ACE521; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:29:55 +0800 (CST)
Received: from zyf-PC ([10.2.52.192]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012110216295151-21331 ; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:29:51 +0800
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:29:43 +0800
From: zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com>
To: "arno@cs.vu.nl" <arno@cs.vu.nl>
References: <20121022054506.24206.72390.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <201210221507482101757@chinamobile.com>, <5084F1F7.4020002@cs.vu.nl>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2012110216294380861230@chinamobile.com>
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-11-02 16:29:51, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-11-02 16:29:54, Serialize complete at 2012-11-02 16:29:54
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart877808286708_=----"
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-19332.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--23.104-7.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--23.104-7.0-31-10;No--23.104-7.0-31-10
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No
Cc: ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
Subject: [ppsp] comments on draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com>
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: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 08:29:56 -0000

Hi Arno (Speaking individually),
   I've read the draft and the following is my comments:
1) The effect of "choke/unchoke" is not very clear in the draft. Will this increase the transfer efficiency?
2) I am fine with the update on section 4. It's good to discuss the compatibility issue in chunk addressing.
3) Is it better to combine section 5,6, 7 into security consideration section as all these 3 sections involve identifying the data is from the reliable source/peers, which is related to security more or less. What's more, it makes the draft better structured.
    

BR
yunfei





zhangyunfei

From: Arno Bakker
Date: 2012-10-22 15:12
To: zhangyunfei
CC: ppsp; stefano previdi
Subject: Re: [ppsp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-03.txt
On 22/10/2012 09:07, zhangyunfei wrote:
> Hi Arno,
> Would you please summarize the main changes of this version of draft?
> That will be helpful to review the draft. Thanks.

Hi Yunfei et al

there is still a revision history at the back of the document. I will 
update the tickets soon:

    Arno

    -03 2012-10-22 Major revision

        *   Updated Abstract and Introduction, removing download case.

        *   Resolved Ticket #4: Added explicit CHOKE/UNCHOKE messages.

        *   Removed directory lists unused in streaming.

        *   Resolved Ticket #22, #23, #28: Failure behaviour, error codes
            and dealing with peer crashes.

        *   Resolved Ticket #13: Chunk ranges are the default chunk
            addressing scheme that all peers MUST support.

        *   Added a section on compatibility between chunk addressing
            schemes.

        *   Expanded the explanation of Unified Merkle Trees as a method
            for content integrity protection for live streams.

        *   Added a section on forgetting chunks in live streaming.

        *   Added "End" option to protocol options and corrected bugs in
            UDP encapsulation, following Karl Knutsson's comments.

        *   Added SHA-2 support for Merkle Hash functions.

        *   Added content integrity protection methods for live streaming
            to the relevant protocol option.

        *   Added a Live Signature Algorithm protocol option.

        *   Resolved Ticket #24+27: The choice for UDP + LEDBAT as
            transport has now been reflected in the draft.  TCP and RTP
            encapsulations have been removed.

        *   Superfluous parts of Section 10 on extensibility have been
            removed.

        *   Removed appendix with Rationale.

        *   Resolved Ticket #21+25: PPSPP currently uses LEDBAT and the
            DATA and ACK messages now contain the time fields it
            requires.  Should other congestion control algorithms be
            supported in the future, a protocol option will be added.