IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ppsp] 答复: ***SPAM*** 8.616 (5) Re: 答复: Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding

Zongning <zongning@huawei.com> Fri, 21 November 2014 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <zongning@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7118F1A1A70 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:24:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HlRJYhH3VgLS for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:24:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 009911A1A80 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:24:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BLW96938; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:24:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:24:19 +0000
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 22 Nov 2014 00:24:11 +0800
From: Zongning <zongning@huawei.com>
To: Dave Cottlehuber <dch@skunkwerks.at>, "ppsp@ietf.org" <ppsp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ppsp] ***SPAM*** 8.616 (5) Re: 答复: Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding
Thread-Index: AQHQBZBVP7Wr/guKK0mW8iF/Um6qZ5xrQ4nA
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:24:10 +0000
Message-ID: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779661E193D@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779661DB7CE@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <00b001cfff9b$6109f510$231ddf30$@com> <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779661DBBB1@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <201411200912520787195@bjtu.edu.cn> <etPan.546f3eb2.6b8b4567.bc5b@akai.skunkwerks.at>
In-Reply-To: <etPan.546f3eb2.6b8b4567.bc5b@akai.skunkwerks.at>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.131.25]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/K_iGlv2O3f56zxV5Mt-uVxX_ayI
Subject: [ppsp] 答复: ***SPAM*** 8.616 (5) Re: 答复: Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding
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: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:24:29 -0000

Thanks, Dave.

Speaking as individual, I don't believe binary encoding is mandatory simply because we are writing protocol in transport area. :-)

-Ning

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: ppsp [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Dave Cottlehuber
发送时间: 2014年11月21日 6:32
收件人: ppsp@ietf.org
主题: Re: [ppsp] ***SPAM*** 8.616 (5) Re: 答复: Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding

> >Hi, Lingli,
> >
> >Yunfei and I are working on roadmap of all I-Ds in PPSP, and will post on the list soon.  
> >
> >The poll for encoding will be open till the *end of next week*.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >-Ning

Given we are writing a *transport* protocol and not an http server, I would opt for binary encoding as mandatory. Optional text encoding if necessary.

The more fat we mix into the the tracker protocol, the less useful it becomes.

—
Dave Cottlehuber
dch@skunkwerks.at
+43 688 60 56 21 44
Sent from the Cloud


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email