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

stefano previdi <sprevidi@cisco.com> Mon, 10 September 2012 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <sprevidi@cisco.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 3743921F86AB for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -107.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152, 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 5PvHM5d+AZkJ for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-sj.cisco.com (av-tac-sj.cisco.com [171.68.227.119]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545E021F853A for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from bonfire.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-sj.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8AFwt9o013338 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-171-71-146-228.cisco.com (dhcp-171-71-146-228.cisco.com [171.71.146.228]) by bonfire.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8AFwrGm012773; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
From: stefano previdi <sprevidi@cisco.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
In-Reply-To: <2012091018125862401141@chinamobile.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:58:53 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F15A039F-9931-4825-8E2C-A1674133F160@cisco.com>
References: <A8219E7785257C47B75B6DCE682F8D2F2BFC8660@SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com> <2012091016154731655619@chinamobile.com>, <A8219E7785257C47B75B6DCE682F8D2F2BFC868E@SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com> <2012091018125862401141@chinamobile.com>
To: zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ppsp] =?utf-8?b?5Zue5aSNOiDnrZTlpI06ICBuZXh0IHN0ZXAgb2YgdHJhY2tl?= =?utf-8?q?r_document?=
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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 15:58:57 -0000

Jinwei,

On Sep 10, 2012, at 12:12 PM, zhangyunfei wrote:
> 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 tent to agree.

We need a mechanism that will work the _same_ for any kind of deployment (private/public).

s.




>      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
> _______________________________________________
> ppsp mailing list
> ppsp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp