Re: [ppsp] 答复: Comments on draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-03

ZongNing <zongning@huawei.com> Tue, 20 September 2011 01:54 UTC

Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:57:04 +0000
From: ZongNing <zongning@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4E774973.4030904@cs.vu.nl>
To: "arno@cs.vu.nl" <arno@cs.vu.nl>
Message-id: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779531368@szxeml504-mbs.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-language: zh-CN
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Thread-topic: 答复: [ppsp] Comments on draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-03
Thread-index: AQHMdtOOrQNdHZcFPEKtgDO8sFOoKpVVgovQ
References: <4E3A48FD.3060302@cs.vu.nl> <003701cc5596$d4c18750$7e4495f0$@com> <4E774973.4030904@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: "ppsp@ietf.org" <ppsp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ppsp] 答复: Comments on draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-03
Precedence: list

Hi, Arno,

See inline.

-----Original Message-----
From: Arno Bakker [mailto:arno@cs.vu.nl] 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:54 PM
To: ZongNing
Cc: ppsp@ietf.org; '邓灵莉/denglingli'
Subject: Re: 答复: [ppsp] Comments on draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-03

Hi all

if Ning Zong can incorporate the previous comments as promised,
and respond to the ones below (inline), I'm fine with the draft.

[ZN] Thank you for your comments & I am working on a new revision now...

On 08/08/2011 08:45, Ning Zong wrote:
> 
> * PPSP.PP.REQ-1+2+4: I propose to allow more explicitly for a
> push-based model, where peers advocate their own chunk availability
> proactively, and state that the peer protocol MUST implement either
> pull-based, push-based or both.
> 
> [ZN]: We have paragraph on page 10 to describe the two modes of pull&  push
> information among peers.
> And I don't think it is necessary to state these modes in a formal
> requirement.
>

[AB]: Are you sure? I think we should make it explicit somewhere that
you do not have to implement CHUNK AVAIL request (i.e., PP.REQ-1) if you
are using a push-based model.

[ZN] I got your point. This makes sense. I will make it explicit somewhere in new revision.

> 
> * PPSP.PP.REQ-6: Is phrased ambiguously at present IMHO. When read as
> "The peers MUST implement the peer protocol for chunk
> [availability] requests and responses among the peers before the
> streaming content is transmitted." it seems self-evident, one
> cannot request a chunk if one doesn't know what chunks the requestee
> has. Hence the requirement seems superfluous.
> 
> [ZN] This is not about chunk availability, but requesting the chunk itself.
> For example, peer A send this message to peer B to request a specific chunk,
> as well as its streaming capability information.
> This message is more like a session negotiation/description message (e.g.
> RTSP, SIP, etc).
>

[AB] It's probably me, but I still don't get it ;-(

[ZN] I try to make it clearer in new revision.


> * PPSP.SEC.REQ-9: I propose to remove the part that requires
> reporting receiving bad content to the tracker. Reporting to the
> tracker would allow for false reporting by malicious peers and
> arbitrating these reports is very complex.
> 
> [ZN] Yunfei and Lingli Deng, what's your opinions on this?
> 

[AB] Have you heard anything from them?

[ZN] Yes, and they will respond on this soon.

Thanks,
     Arno

[ppsp] Comments on draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-03 Arno Bakker
[ppsp] 答复: Comments on draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-03 Ning Zong
Re: [ppsp] 答复: Comments on draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-03 Arno Bakker
Re: [ppsp] 答复: Comments on draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-03 ZongNing
Re: [ppsp] 答复: Comments on draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-03 Arno Bakker