Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation

["Rahman, Akbar" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yingjie,

 

I agree with your list of major improvements required for the tracker I-D.  I would also add to this list the comment that I had given on security previously.  Specifically:

 

   I think we need to have a separate "Security Considerations" section in the document

   as is usually found in most drafts.  At the present time, there are security related

   points spread throughout the document and I found it hard to deduce the overall

   security approach.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Akbar

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 9:25 PM
To: 'Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing)'; 'ext Ping Pan'
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation

 

Hi, 

Thank all of you for your comments and supports.

All comments are aiming to make the draft more suitable for a WG item, though people may have different ideas on adoption. 

I always agree the draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol still need improvement no matter we adopt it now or later.

As answer to chairs’ and other experts comments,  

1)    composing a section to ‘analyze the strengh and drawback of both encodings in the protocol draft’, It’s okay to add some analysis text in the draft, but since we can not make an accurate calculation on bandwidth consuming before we make exact messages definition, I don’t think the analysis text will include bandwidth consuming calculation comparison between text-based and binary based. Besides, since we already have a rough consensus on Text-based encoding, I think we can answer the encoding question as “text-based encoding”.  Any objection to this? The draft has described a HTTP-based encoding. 

2)    As for Transport protocol, as Yunfei has said as a chair, this has been clarified in Charter.  Personally, I think TCP is okay for Tracker protocol, but UDP is better for Peer protocol. This is idea is also from some other people I talked with. But currently, the WG has not make any decision that Transport protocol choice is in scope of Tracker and Peer Protocol, so Tracker protocol authors will follow WG Charter for now, unless Transport protocol choice is pushed to PPSP protocol design.

3)    As for NAT Traversal, there is already a good draft to analyzing and providing solution to it. Tracker protocol will receive the requirements from the NAT draft and make sure Tracker protocol is able to support common requirements for various NAT Traversal solution. 

4)    There is some confusing description, most in introduction section, the authors promise to revise it next version.

5)    The Binary encoding, which is in appendix now, will be removed in next version.

Are there other major comments I missed?

 

If you have any objection to the above answer, please voice out, so that the WG can have a discussion on that.

If there is no objection, will the Chairs be glad with rough consensus on the above comments?

 

Again, thank all of you and all the comments are highly appreciated.

BR

Yingjie

 

 

________________________________

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing)
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:54 PM
To: ext Ping Pan
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation

 

I don't think it's fanny at all! I remember the WG chairs showed the same idea with me, and got the consensus at the meeting.

 

If it's a vegetarian restaurant, no one will cook steak for you.You can say the food is not that good, but I believe it's still vegetable. What's your solution? Cook yourself? or I think we should help the chef to improve the quality of the food "in the restaurant". Or if you are not interested in the restaurant, you can just leave.

 

________________________________

From: ext Ping Pan [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:57 PM
To: Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing)
Cc: ext zhangyunfei; Martin Stiemerling; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation

Interesting logic! 

 

I go a restaurant for vegetarian food. Instead, I'm offered with steak. What would my choices? Eat the meat because it's cooked already? Have a salad and let it go by? Leave the restaurant altogether? Or ask the chef to prepare the food I want?

 

 

2011/4/15 Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing) <[e-mail]>

Hi, 

 

I think PPSP WG has the interest to study the PPSP tracker protocol,and "draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol-03" is the only draft on the table, so we should accept this as WG draft. It's true that efforts are still needed to improve the quality of the draft, but more work still can be done after it's accepted as a WG draft, right?  Do we have another choice?

 

 

BR 

Lin

 

 

________________________________

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext zhangyunfei
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:03 PM
To: Martin Stiemerling; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation

Hi all,

      For the transport protocol, which is beyond the current scope of PPSP, as suggested in the charter. However when we talk about the transport protocol used in practice for P2P streaming applications, UDP has been seen the most commonly used protocol now, with the transition from TCP to UDP both for data transport. And many applications(e.g., ppstream, pplive) even change from TCP to use UDP for signaling transport(draft-zhang-ppsp-protocol-comparison-measurement-00). 

       The rational behind this is that firstly, streaming applications *don't*care much of packet loss and secondly, p2p streaming tracker and peer query mechanism ensures there are *enough* active peers to exchange data, so a peer doesn't care *much* if one request is successfully transmitted or not. This is proven in wired network. But when we consider a converged environment, we may need more investigation on whether UDP is *enough* for transport.

      For the encoding issue, since we polled and seems "text" is acceptable by most guys and there are some uncertainty on "binary", I would suggest (individually) to add one section to analyze the strengh and drawback of both encodings in the protocol draft. 

      Regarding the WG item adoption, I would like to see that there is rough consensus on the questions recently raised and discussed in the mailing list before the adoption.

 

BR

Yunfei

 

________________________________

zhangyunfei

2011-04-12

________________________________

发件人： Martin Stiemerling

发送时间： 2011-04-08 22:25:40

收件人： [e-mail]

抄送： 

主题： Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation

 

[speaking  as  individual  -  not  as  PPSP  co-chair]

 

Hi  there,

 

Here  is  my  incomplete  review  of  draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol-03  and  my  opinion  of  whether  it  is  ready  to  become  WG  item:

 

-  Why  are  there  still  2  encodings  in  the  draft?  Isn't  it  time  to  conclude  on  one  encoding?

-  Section  1:  "the  main  part  is  the  abstract  description  of  the  operations...".  This  means  that  this  is  actually  not  a  draft  about  the  tracker  protocol?

-  Section  1:  "for  both  a  bittorrent  style  offline  and  real-time  streaming  protocol".  Why  is  it  so?  We  are  in  PPSP,  so  we  should  work  on  something  for  streaming,  isn't  it?

-  Why  is  there  the  notion  of  battery  level  in  the  status  messages?

-  Section  9.1.3:  What  is  the  issue  with  fragmentation  in  here?  

-  What  is  the  transport  protocol  where  the  tracker  protocol  should  run  over?

 

The  proposed  methods  look  reasonable,  but  the  overall  draft  organization  still  suffers  from  what  Section  1  hints  to  that  it  is  solely  an  abstract  description  of  the  operations.  

 

 

 

I'm  **not**  in  favor  of  getting  draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol-03  to  be  a  WG  item,  for  these  reasons:

-  document  quality  is  not  good  enough  in  my  opinion

-  it  is  unclear  what  the  transport  protocol  is.  there  is  a  hint  to  UDP,  which  is  not  a  good  choice  to  be  used  in  this  particular  case

-  there  is  not  yet  a  real  protocol  described  in  the  draft,  but  only  the  skeletons  of  two  protocols  (binary  and  HTTP).  

 

I  would  suggest  (still  speaking  as  individual)  to  first  make  some  important  decisions,  e.g.,  encoding,  fix  the  document,  etc  and  **afterwards**  make  a  new  call  for  WG  adoption.

 

Thanks,

 

   Martin

 

 

[e-mail]

 

NEC  Laboratories  Europe  -  Network  Research  Division

NEC  Europe  Limited  |  Registered  Office:  NEC  House,  1  Victoria  Road,  London  W3  6BL  |  Registered  in  England  2832014  

 

 

>  -----Original  Message-----

>  From:  zhangyunfei  [mailto:[e-mail]]

>  Sent:  Tuesday,  March  29,  2011  10:22  AM

>  To:  Cullen  Jennings;  [e-mail]

>  Cc:  Martin  Stiemerling

>  Subject:  WG  item  adoption  confirmation

>  

>  Hi  all,

>        As  discussed  in  yesterday's  meeting,  we  will  likely  adopt  draft-gu-

>  ppsp-tracker-protocol  as  a  new  WG  item.  Please  post  on  the  mailing  list

>  if  you  have  any  objections  on  this  before  Apr.  10th.

>          If  there  are  no  objections  by  Apr.  10th  2011,  the  draft  above  will

>  be  accepted  as  WG  document  fulfilling  the  “tracker  protocol”

>  deliverable.Thanks.

>  

>  BR

>  Yunfei

>  

>  

>  

>  ________________________________

>  

>  zhangyunfei

>  2011-03-29

>  ________________________________

>  

>  发件人：  Cullen  Jennings

>  发送时间：  2011-03-28  17:27:23

>  收件人：  [e-mail]

>  抄送：

>  主题：  [ppsp]  Notes  from  PPSP  meeting  IETF80

>  

>  

>  A    few    notes    I    took    from    the    meeting

>  

>  First,    thank    you    to    Christian    Schmidt    for    taking    minutes    and

>  Martin    Stiemerling    for    jabber    scribing.

>  

>  We    need    to    prioritize    the    use    cases    and    decide    what    we    will

>  work    on    first.

>  

>  draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement    is    getting    close    to    WGLC

>  

>  We    will    likely    adopt    draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol    as    a    WG

>  item

>  

>  Were    about    60    people    in    room

>  

>  

>  

>  

>  _______________________________________________

>  ppsp    mailing    list

>  [e-mail]

>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

_______________________________________________

ppsp  mailing  list

[e-mail]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp


_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp