[ppsp] 答复: ***SPAM*** 5.939 (5) review of base tracker protocol -07

Xiajinwei <xiajinwei@huawei.com> Thu, 25 December 2014 02:53 UTC

Return-Path: <xiajinwei@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC781A7028 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 18:53:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.44
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8ONkCpk1WMMa for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 18:53:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6284D1A7005 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 18:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BQL56811; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 02:53:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 02:53:33 +0000
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 25 Dec 2014 10:53:28 +0800
From: Xiajinwei <xiajinwei@huawei.com>
To: Mi Zhang <13120174@bjtu.edu.cn>, "ppsp@ietf.org" <ppsp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ppsp] ***SPAM*** 5.939 (5) review of base tracker protocol -07
Thread-Index: AQHQH97+vUsVULRLKES09YJ5AWkorpyfl9xw
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 02:53:27 +0000
Message-ID: <A8219E7785257C47B75B6DCE682F8D2F90152E45@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <79c11de0.3445.14a7efb7411.Coremail.13120174@bjtu.edu.cn>
In-Reply-To: <79c11de0.3445.14a7efb7411.Coremail.13120174@bjtu.edu.cn>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A8219E7785257C47B75B6DCE682F8D2F90152E45nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/JhWqoK-ym3dddWvDxAiFFC1IKys
Subject: [ppsp] 答复: ***SPAM*** 5.939 (5) review of base tracker protocol -07
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 25 Dec 2014 02:53:39 -0000

Hi Mi Zhang,

Thanks for your comments, please see my responses inline.

发件人: ppsp [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Mi Zhang
发送时间: 2014年12月25日 9:07
收件人: ppsp@ietf.org
主题: [ppsp] ***SPAM*** 5.939 (5) review of base tracker protocol -07


I have reviewed the PPSP-TP 07, it is very clear and neat. In general, I have no comments about the procedures, but there are some trivial problems:

1)        Section 2.3.2
 c) “transitions to TERMINATE state for that Peer ID and and the SM is destroyed.”

Duplicated “and”.

JW: will correct it.

2)        Section 6.12
Paragraph 5, “To provide more choices for the requesting peer, the tracker may select a new peer list with lower priority from the list of peers and return it to the requesting peer later.”

I am not sure “later” refers to what time or condition specifically.

JW: it depends on the actual implementation, up to PPSP provider to decide it.

3)        Section 6.3
Paragraph 3, “The tracker SHOULD be prepared to receive a Request with a repeated TransactionID.”

What kind of preparations SHOULD the tracker make?

JW: it needs to judge what error happen and response an corresponding error code.

4)        Section 7.1.2
Last sentence, “this specification does not details a migration path.”

“details” or “detail” ?

JW: will be “detail”.

5)        Section 8
Paragraph 2, “No security system can guarantees complete security….”

“guarantees” or “guarantee”?

 JW: will be “guarantee”.


Mi Zhang