Re: [ppsp] Request: draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol as WG item

[Arno Bakker <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rui et al,

please see inline.

On 14/11/2012 13:36, Rui Cruz wrote:
>>
>> At the moment when peerMode is SEED the tracker appears not to send a
>> peer list (p. 27 at bottom). Please clarify how a seed obtains a peer
>> list, e.g. does PeerNum take priority over peerMode?
> Using only the base protocol (the extended protocol provides extra
> control in this area) the condition you mention might be turned implicit
> if peerNum is supplied when peerMode is SEED.
> I personally have no objection with that condition.
> If WG agrees a paragraph can be added to describe it.
>

Please do.


> The CONNECT message in the base protocol is restricted to certain
> conditions.

IMHO, these restrictions on CONNECT could be lifted to allow it to be 
used for refreshing registrations, yielding a very simple 1 message 
protocol.


>> But if it is currently not possible to implement a tracker service
>> that offers this functionality and is secure in a malicious
>> environment, the support for it should not be in the tracker protocol,
>> IMHO.
> I do not agree with your position stating that a (global) trust
> functionality is "not possible" to be offered.
> An implementation of a tracker service can perfectly offer a trust
> functionality. It might not be "global" but can be offered.
> In EU Project SARACEN we have an implementation of a trust/reputation
> functionality.

Let me phrase it differently: Can you build a PPSP-based YouTube that 
securely uses this property-based peer selection? If not, the draft 
should make it clear that property-based selections can only be safely 
used under specific conditions.

CU,
     Arno