IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ppsp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-huang-ppsp-extended-tracker-protocol-03.txt

Arno Bakker <arno@cs.vu.nl> Tue, 30 July 2013 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <a.bakker@vu.nl>
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 BF80C21E80E7 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 02:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 oS9OUzlwBWrY for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 02:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A733311E80DF for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 02:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PEXHB011B.vu.local (130.37.236.65) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:02:54 +0200
Received: from [130.37.193.73] (130.37.253.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:02:51 +0200
Message-ID: <51F78163.8050605@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:03:31 +0200
From: Arno Bakker <arno@cs.vu.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ppsp@ietf.org
References: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB45841007@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB45841007@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [130.37.253.20]
Subject: Re: [ppsp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-huang-ppsp-extended-tracker-protocol-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 09:06:38 -0000

Hi all

I have some comments on the extended tracker protocol's motivation. The 
draft lists 4 use cases that the base protocol "may not be able to deal 
with".

"1. The peer list of a specific swarm obtained by a peer may be out
of date":

	I always assumed that when the initial peer list received via
	the base protocol is outdated, a peer would send a new CONNECT
	message with a PeerNum attribute to get a new list. So why is
	extra support needed?

"2. A peer may have the requirement to inform the tracker its new
network address when the peer has changed its primary network 
attachment."

	a) Isn't this the role of mobile IP? and b) can't the base 	
	CONNECT handle this?

It seems most of the spec is actually about finding peers based on what 
content they have and not these two specific use cases, so perhaps they 
can be removed?

Regards,
      Arno

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email