[ppsp] 回复: 答复: next step of tracker document

zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com> Mon, 10 September 2012 10:13 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 3B0FA21F8600 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 03:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -94.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-94.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.948, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, 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 lyN8SKuqr1SA for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 03:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE49121F84F3 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 03:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53297E545; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:13:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14829E53A; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:13:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from zyf-PC ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012091018130226-26266 ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:13:02 +0800
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:12:58 +0800
From: zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com>
To: 'Xiajinwei' <xiajinwei@huawei.com>, ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
References: <A8219E7785257C47B75B6DCE682F8D2F2BFC8660@SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com> <2012091016154731655619@chinamobile.com>, <A8219E7785257C47B75B6DCE682F8D2F2BFC868E@SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2012091018125862401141@chinamobile.com>
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-09-10 18:13:02, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-09-10 18:13:04, Serialize complete at 2012-09-10 18:13:04
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart072676823206_=----"
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-19174.005
X-TM-AS-Result: No--45.169-7.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--45.169-7.0-31-10;No--45.169-7.0-31-10
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No
Subject: [ppsp] =?gb2312?b?u9i4tDogtPC4tDogIG5leHQgc3RlcCBvZiB0cmFja2Vy?= =?gb2312?b?IGRvY3VtZW50?=
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: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:13:10 -0000

Hi Jinwei (Speaking individually),
     My suggestion is to consider peer IP(private, public)+port(private, public) for the purpose of identifying the peer. Is it enough? Or we may need more information for the identification.
     I am not meaning totally removing the encoding in the tracker protocol. However I suggest in current stage, encoding part may be placed in the appendix part, as a step to realize the consensus in last IETF. 
    Regarding the encoding proposal you raised, my feeling is that we at least need to ask the people with concerns in last IETF (See the minutes) for their comments.

BR
Yunfei
     





zhangyunfei

发件人: Xiajinwei
发送时间: 2012-09-10 16:36
收件人: zhangyunfei; ppsp
主题: 答复: [ppsp] next step of tracker document
Hi Yunfei,
 
Wow, your feedback is very prompt!  
 
Yes, the Peer IP information can be used in a limited scenario, for example, all the peers are in a enterprise network and are behind the enterprise NAT, they can transmit the enterprise files among the enterprise network via their local IP addresses. But the Peer ID is mandatory and can’t be replaced by Peer IP information IMHO.
 
Do you mean the conclusion is removing encoding type related text from this document? if yes, will the text be moved into another document, e.g., tracker extension draft?
 
Thank you!
 
 
Jinwei
 
发件人: zhangyunfei [mailto:zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com] 
发送时间: 2012年9月10日 16:16
收件人: Xiajinwei; ppsp
主题: Re: [ppsp] next step of tracker document
 
Hi Jinwei,
    For point1, when you mention peer IP address is optional to identify the peer. Do you mean it's *feasible* or a *suitable candidate*? If it were the case, I agree with you at this point.
   For  point2, the consensus in last IETF on this draft should be "concentrating on the message* if I don't remember wrong. Regarding the encoding part, you can ask Wes and Fabio for more comments.
 
Thanks.
BR
Yunfei 



zhangyunfei
 
From: Xiajinwei
Date: 2012-09-10 15:51
To: ppsp@ietf.org
Subject: [ppsp] next step of tracker document
Hi all,
 
I notice there are two concerns in tracker document from IETF 84 meeting minutes, in order to accelerate the processing of this document, I’d like to show my understanding firstly. Hope we can push this work forward and get consensus as soon as possible.
 
1, Peer ID is global unique to identify the Peer, from this point of view, the Peer IP address is optional to identify the Peer. IMO it could be useful in a closed swarm scenario, in which the peers (both leech and seed) are behind the NAT and they can share the media content in the local domain (e.g., enterprise inside). If I am right, I suggest some text should be given to describe this scenario.
 
2, Encoding xml or binary experiences a long discussion, different person have different preference. One compromise is encoding and decoding XML in binary, the related context is specified in W3C Efficient XML Interchange Working Group or in ISO/IEC 23001-Part 1 ”Binary MPEG format for XML”. Therefore, encoding both XML and HTTP in binary format are implementation options. The draft can have a couple of paragraphs providing those options in terms of implementation notes.
 
Any comments?
 
Thank you!
 
 
Jinwei