Re: [ppsp] Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding

邓灵莉/Lingli Deng <> Thu, 13 November 2014 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9D71AE2EA for <>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:41:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.028
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BPnltI5CzyZS for <>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:41:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id E86C91AE2EC for <>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:41:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown[]) by rmmx-syy-dmz-app01-12001 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee1546541b1ec3-4b2e2; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:41:41 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee1546541b1ec3-4b2e2
X-RM-SPAM-FLAG: 00000000
Received: from cmccPC (unknown[]) by rmsmtp-syy-appsvr01-12001 (RichMail) with SMTP id 2ee1546541b1b3d-c241f; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:41:41 +0800 (CST)
X-RM-TRANSID: 2ee1546541b1b3d-c241f
From: 邓灵莉/Lingli Deng <>
To: 'Zongning' <>,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 07:41:39 +0800
Message-ID: <00b001cfff9b$6109f510$231ddf30$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B1_01CFFFDE.6F2D3510"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac/+6XHitTUE4yIXTIW0IaBSD9/HLgAsWk8A
Content-Language: zh-cn
Subject: Re: [ppsp] Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:41:47 -0000

Dear Chairs,


Speaking as one of the co-authors for the base tracker protocol, we are happy to take whatever the group feels right.

But would you mind setting a clear time limit for this poll? 





From: ppsp [] On Behalf Of Zongning
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:28 AM
Subject: [ppsp] Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding


Hi, all,


Firstly, thanks to the co-authors of Base Tracker Protocol for persistently moving the draft forward.


Now the outstanding issue is that as a Standard Track document, we really NEED to agree on a mandatory encoding for the interoperable on-the-wire Tracker Protocol. As discussed in the PPSP session today, we will start WGLC for the draft, provided that we can reach a rough consensus on the encoding option and the co-authors revise the draft accordingly.


Currently we have two options mentioned in the draft – they are text based and binary based. For an exemplary comparison, please see Section 3.1 in the draft. Could folks in the group give their opinions on which encoding option is preferred for Tracker Protocol, and why? People are welcome to give other options beyond text and binary, but please do show us the reason for choosing them.


The during of this call will not last too long, before the co-chairs will make a decision. So, please do contribute your technical expertise in this perspective, to enlight the group.




-Yunfei & Ning