Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation

["David A. Bryan" <[e-mail]>]

So a few comments here. In full disclosure, I'm an author on the
draft, and so would personally like to see it adopted and think it is
a good base, but there is obviously some inherent bias on my part...

My experience in the past has been that until you have a draft of some
kind (protocol or a design document) in which to document consensus it
is very hard to drive forward. Some folks don't even read drafts or
get involved in a group until it has WG items. We have had debate at
several meetings on some of these issues (HTTP/Binary, offline
support, etc.) and it has been tough to drive toward consensus, get it
documented, and move on. Newcomers join and the same issues get hashed
again and again since there isn't a document to track consensus.
(Sometimes you are lucky if you can get the comments until last
call...)

In P2PSIP, we had several competing (and in function, very similar,
with one exception) proposals, and the authors spent lots of time
incorporating each other's tweaks into their drafts. It took years
(literally) to resolve, finally by merging the drafts. Once that
happened, the group debated the technical points, and had a clear
place to document the consensus -- the adopted draft. Other groups
achieve the same goal using a design draft.

I prefer we adopt, but if we don't adopt
draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol as a WG item, then I would at least
suggest a WG item for a new design draft that does nothing but list
the big questions, and use that to drive and document WG consensus
(i.e., discussion, then slides and hums on each question, then confirm
it on list and wrap up that document), or appoint a design team to go
make either a design or protocol draft so that we can spend time
productively. What I'd like to avoid is spending time nailing down
every detail of multiple proposals when there is no place to clearly
document the direction the group wants to go in the first place.

On a few specific issues raised about the draft:

The binary encoding remains in the draft simply because while the
authors prefer HTTP, we haven't been able to get a clear WG consensus.
We would be willing to adjust the draft to reflect the desired
encoding (and change/modify as the group discussion evolves
accordingly). We spend more time on the operations -- I feel the
encoding is much less important than getting the operations right
(which we would love feedback on -- we may very well have them wrong,
but there hasn't been much discussion on list about that, despite it
being the most important question in my opinion)

On the offline question, there has been a great deal of discussion in
the early meetings (I missed Prague, so forgive me if things changed)
to allow time-shifted, BT style designs as well. We reflected that in
the draft, but again, it would be good to discuss further. For those
asking about this, it might be good to go back and listen to the old
minutes (particularly the BoF). There was very strong consensus in the
room to support offline as well as real-time. I do agree this is
perhaps not well reflected in the charter, and again, it would be good
to document this consensus -- one way or another -- somewhere.

As mentioned, bootstrapping is explicitly out of scope in the charter
at present.

Security definitely needs more work and Akbar's comment is valid -- we
need to reorganize the text into one location. We would also love
comments on list about this topic. The discussion online has been
pretty quiet.

David



On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Sorry, I remembered this comment, but forget to list it. We definitely need
> a security consideration.
>
> Thanks again.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Rahman, Akbar [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:25 PM
> To: Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
> Cc: [e-mail]; Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing); ext Ping Pan
> Subject: RE: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation
>
>
>
> Hi Yingjie,
>
>
>
> I agree with your list of major improvements required for the tracker I-D.
> I would also add to this list the comment that I had given on security
> previously.  Specifically:
>
>
>
>    I think we need to have a separate "Security Considerations" section in
> the document
>
>    as is usually found in most drafts.  At the present time, there are
> security related
>
>    points spread throughout the document and I found it hard to deduce the
> overall
>
>    security approach.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Akbar
>
>
>
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 9:25 PM
> To: 'Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing)'; 'ext Ping Pan'
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank all of you for your comments and supports.
>
> All comments are aiming to make the draft more suitable for a WG item,
> though people may have different ideas on adoption.
>
> I always agree the draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol still need improvement no
> matter we adopt it now or later.
>
> As answer to chairs' and other experts comments,
>
> 1)  composing a section to 'analyze the strengh and drawback of both
> encodings in the protocol draft', It's okay to add some analysis text in the
> draft, but since we can not make an accurate calculation on bandwidth
> consuming before we make exact messages definition, I don't think the
> analysis text will include bandwidth consuming calculation comparison
> between text-based and binary based. Besides, since we already have a rough
> consensus on Text-based encoding, I think we can answer the encoding
> question as "text-based encoding".  Any objection to this? The draft has
> described a HTTP-based encoding.
>
> 2)  As for Transport protocol, as Yunfei has said as a chair, this has been
> clarified in Charter.  Personally, I think TCP is okay for Tracker protocol,
> but UDP is better for Peer protocol. This is idea is also from some other
> people I talked with. But currently, the WG has not make any decision that
> Transport protocol choice is in scope of Tracker and Peer Protocol, so
> Tracker protocol authors will follow WG Charter for now, unless Transport
> protocol choice is pushed to PPSP protocol design.
>
> 3)  As for NAT Traversal, there is already a good draft to analyzing and
> providing solution to it. Tracker protocol will receive the requirements
> from the NAT draft and make sure Tracker protocol is able to support common
> requirements for various NAT Traversal solution.
>
> 4)  There is some confusing description, most in introduction section, the
> authors promise to revise it next version.
>
> 5)  The Binary encoding, which is in appendix now, will be removed in next
> version.
>
> Are there other major comments I missed?
>
>
>
> If you have any objection to the above answer, please voice out, so that the
> WG can have a discussion on that.
>
> If there is no objection, will the Chairs be glad with rough consensus on
> the above comments?
>
>
>
> Again, thank all of you and all the comments are highly appreciated.
>
> BR
>
> Yingjie
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing)
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:54 PM
> To: ext Ping Pan
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation
>
>
>
> I don't think it's fanny at all! I remember the WG chairs showed the same
> idea with me, and got the consensus at the meeting.
>
>
>
> If it's a vegetarian restaurant, no one will cook steak for you.You can say
> the food is not that good, but I believe it's still vegetable. What's your
> solution? Cook yourself? or I think we should help the chef to improve the
> quality of the food "in the restaurant". Or if you are not interested in the
> restaurant, you can just leave.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ext Ping Pan [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:57 PM
> To: Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing)
> Cc: ext zhangyunfei; Martin Stiemerling; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation
>
> Interesting logic!
>
>
>
> I go a restaurant for vegetarian food. Instead, I'm offered with steak. What
> would my choices? Eat the meat because it's cooked already? Have a salad and
> let it go by? Leave the restaurant altogether? Or ask the chef to prepare
> the food I want?
>
>
>
>
>
> 2011/4/15 Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing) <[e-mail]>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I think PPSP WG has the interest to study the PPSP tracker
> protocol,and "draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol-03" is the only draft on the
> table, so we should accept this as WG draft. It's true that efforts are
> still needed to improve the quality of the draft, but more work still can be
> done after it's accepted as a WG draft, right?  Do we have another choice?
>
>
>
>
>
> BR
>
> Lin
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext
> zhangyunfei
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:03 PM
> To: Martin Stiemerling; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation
>
> Hi all,
>
>       For the transport protocol, which is beyond the current scope of PPSP,
> as suggested in the charter. However when we talk about the transport
> protocol used in practice for P2P streaming applications, UDP has been seen
> the most commonly used protocol now, with the transition from TCP to UDP
> both for data transport. And many applications(e.g., ppstream, pplive) even
> change from TCP to use UDP for signaling
> transport(draft-zhang-ppsp-protocol-comparison-measurement-00).
>
>        The rational behind this is that firstly, streaming applications
> *don't*care much of packet loss and secondly, p2p streaming tracker and peer
> query mechanism ensures there are *enough* active peers to exchange data, so
> a peer doesn't care *much* if one request is successfully transmitted or
> not. This is proven in wired network. But when we consider a converged
> environment, we may need more investigation on whether UDP is *enough* for
> transport.
>
>       For the encoding issue, since we polled and seems "text" is acceptable
> by most guys and there are some uncertainty on "binary", I would suggest
> (individually) to add one section to analyze the strengh and drawback of
> both encodings in the protocol draft.
>
>       Regarding the WG item adoption, I would like to see that there is
> rough consensus on the questions recently raised and discussed in the
> mailing list before the adoption.
>
>
>
> BR
>
> Yunfei
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> zhangyunfei
>
> 2011-04-12
>
> ________________________________
>
> 发件人： Martin Stiemerling
>
> 发送时间： 2011-04-08 22:25:40
>
> 收件人： [e-mail]
>
> 抄送：
>
> 主题： Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation
>
>
>
> [speaking  as  individual  -  not  as  PPSP  co-chair]
>
>
>
> Hi  there,
>
>
>
> Here  is  my  incomplete  review  of  draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol-03  and
>  my  opinion  of  whether  it  is  ready  to  become  WG  item:
>
>
>
> -  Why  are  there  still  2  encodings  in  the  draft?  Isn't  it  time
>  to  conclude  on  one  encoding?
>
> -  Section  1:  "the  main  part  is  the  abstract  description  of  the
>  operations...".  This  means  that  this  is  actually  not  a  draft
>  about  the  tracker  protocol?
>
> -  Section  1:  "for  both  a  bittorrent  style  offline  and  real-time
>  streaming  protocol".  Why  is  it  so?  We  are  in  PPSP,  so  we  should
>  work  on  something  for  streaming,  isn't  it?
>
> -  Why  is  there  the  notion  of  battery  level  in  the  status
>  messages?
>
> -  Section  9.1.3:  What  is  the  issue  with  fragmentation  in  here?
>
> -  What  is  the  transport  protocol  where  the  tracker  protocol  should
>  run  over?
>
>
>
> The  proposed  methods  look  reasonable,  but  the  overall  draft
>  organization  still  suffers  from  what  Section  1  hints  to  that  it
>  is  solely  an  abstract  description  of  the  operations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm  **not**  in  favor  of  getting  draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol-03  to
>  be  a  WG  item,  for  these  reasons:
>
> -  document  quality  is  not  good  enough  in  my  opinion
>
> -  it  is  unclear  what  the  transport  protocol  is.  there  is  a  hint
>  to  UDP,  which  is  not  a  good  choice  to  be  used  in  this
>  particular  case
>
> -  there  is  not  yet  a  real  protocol  described  in  the  draft,  but
>  only  the  skeletons  of  two  protocols  (binary  and  HTTP).
>
>
>
> I  would  suggest  (still  speaking  as  individual)  to  first  make  some
>  important  decisions,  e.g.,  encoding,  fix  the  document,  etc  and
>  **afterwards**  make  a  new  call  for  WG  adoption.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>    Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> [e-mail]
>
>
>
> NEC  Laboratories  Europe  -  Network  Research  Division
>
> NEC  Europe  Limited  |  Registered  Office:  NEC  House,  1  Victoria
>  Road,  London  W3  6BL  |  Registered  in  England  2832014
>
>
>
>
>
>>  -----Original  Message-----
>
>>  From:  zhangyunfei  [mailto:[e-mail]]
>
>>  Sent:  Tuesday,  March  29,  2011  10:22  AM
>
>>  To:  Cullen  Jennings;  [e-mail]
>
>>  Cc:  Martin  Stiemerling
>
>>  Subject:  WG  item  adoption  confirmation
>
>>
>
>>  Hi  all,
>
>>        As  discussed  in  yesterday's  meeting,  we  will  likely  adopt
>>  draft-gu-
>
>>  ppsp-tracker-protocol  as  a  new  WG  item.  Please  post  on  the
>>  mailing  list
>
>>  if  you  have  any  objections  on  this  before  Apr.  10th.
>
>>          If  there  are  no  objections  by  Apr.  10th  2011,  the  draft
>>  above  will
>
>>  be  accepted  as  WG  document  fulfilling  the  "tracker  protocol"
>
>>  deliverable.Thanks.
>
>>
>
>>  BR
>
>>  Yunfei
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>  ________________________________
>
>>
>
>>  zhangyunfei
>
>>  2011-03-29
>
>>  ________________________________
>
>>
>
>>  发件人：  Cullen  Jennings
>
>>  发送时间：  2011-03-28  17:27:23
>
>>  收件人：  [e-mail]
>
>>  抄送：
>
>>  主题：  [ppsp]  Notes  from  PPSP  meeting  IETF80
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>  A    few    notes    I    took    from    the    meeting
>
>>
>
>>  First,    thank    you    to    Christian    Schmidt    for    taking
>>  minutes    and
>
>>  Martin    Stiemerling    for    jabber    scribing.
>
>>
>
>>  We    need    to    prioritize    the    use    cases    and    decide
>>  what    we    will
>
>>  work    on    first.
>
>>
>
>>  draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement    is    getting    close    to    WGLC
>
>>
>
>>  We    will    likely    adopt    draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol    as
>>  a    WG
>
>>  item
>
>>
>
>>  Were    about    60    people    in    room
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>  _______________________________________________
>
>>  ppsp    mailing    list
>
>>  [e-mail]
>
>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> ppsp  mailing  list
>
> [e-mail]
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> ppsp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ppsp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
>
>