IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ppsp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-04.txt

ZongNing <zongning@huawei.com> Thu, 29 September 2011 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <zongning@huawei.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 0A9F321F8DB8 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.838, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 862tdwdxZpwi for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30EA11F0CF2 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LS900FQYJ4G04@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ppsp@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:33:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LS900CYDJ4707@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ppsp@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:33:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id ADZ13470; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:33:52 +0800
Received: from SZXEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) by szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:33:46 +0800
Received: from SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.252]) by szxeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.91]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:33:44 +0800
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 02:33:42 +0000
From: ZongNing <zongning@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <4E83D533.5050007@mti-systems.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.128]
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, "ppsp@ietf.org" <ppsp@ietf.org>
Message-id: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779533CC6@szxeml504-mbs.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-language: zh-CN
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Thread-topic: [ppsp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-04.txt
Thread-index: AQHMfk35WEs8oss1tUiXDRPbHvxJ3pVjohUA
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779532696@szxeml504-mbs.china.huawei.com> <4E79930E.5020509@cs.vu.nl> <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779533C74@szxeml504-mbs.china.huawei.com> <4E83D533.5050007@mti-systems.com>
Subject: Re: [ppsp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-04.txt
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: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 02:31:47 -0000

Hi, Wesley,

Just to be clear, you agree with Arno or me? It seems to me that you actually agree with me.

Here is Arno's opinion:
" I think we need to make the requirements for simple trackers and for smart trackers more explicit."

Here is my opinion:
" Since there is no such definition like "simple tracker" and "smart tracker" in industry, I prefer NOT to define these terms in PPSP WG. For a requirement draft, we can just use the words - "MUST", "SHOULD", "MAY" etc to differentiate which are necessary (for basic inter-op) and which are preferred."

BR,
Ning Zong

-----Original Message-----
From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wesley Eddy
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:17 AM
To: ppsp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ppsp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-04.txt

On 9/28/2011 8:31 PM, ZongNing wrote:
> Hi, Arno,
>
> Since there is no such definition like "simple tracker" and "smart tracker" in industry, I prefer not to define these terms in PPSP WG.
> For a requirement draft, we can just use the words - "MUST", "SHOULD", "MAY" etc to differentiate which are necessary (for basic inter-op) and which are preferred. The real-world implementation will choose the appropriate functional set based on their design, rather than follow our requirements/definition of "simple tracker" and "smart tracker".
> How do you think.


Just speaking as an individual, I would agree with Arno.  If it doesn't
have a technical definition, then "smart tracker" is just a marketing
term and should be avoided in a requirements spec.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email