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

[Arno Bakker <[e-mail]>]

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.


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.


> 
> * 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 ;-(


> * 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?

Thanks,
     Arno