Re: [ppsp] #22: Should we define failure behaviour and semantics?
"ppsp issue tracker" <trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org> Wed, 31 October 2012 16:51 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 AFAF121F87CC for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 DQgWdw2P3hEW for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1427F21F87B5 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59320 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1TTbVh-0006On-NK; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:51:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: ppsp issue tracker <trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl
X-Trac-Project: ppsp
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:51:21 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/22#comment:1
Message-ID: <067.151a11706f0766b7ed0081e56dcc0dc2@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <052.b7284c79ac86b8bfac53df4426cee929@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 22
In-Reply-To: <052.b7284c79ac86b8bfac53df4426cee929@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: arno@cs.vu.nl, r.petrocco@gmail.com, victor.grishchenko@gmail.com
Resent-Message-Id: <20121031165147.1427F21F87B5@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:51:47 -0700
Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 02:18:32 -0700
Cc: ppsp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ppsp] #22: Should we define failure behaviour and semantics?
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:51:47 -0000
#22: Should we define failure behaviour and semantics?
Changes (by arno@…):
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => fixed
Comment:
In -03 we chose not to, peers are judged by their behaviour (responding
with DATA is good, otherwise bad) and only good peers are used.
--
---------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@…
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: peer-protocol | Version:
Severity: - | Resolution: fixed
Keywords: |
---------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/22#comment:1>
ppsp <http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/>
- [ppsp] #22: Should we define failure behaviour an… ppsp issue tracker
- Re: [ppsp] #22: Should we define failure behaviou… ppsp issue tracker