Re: [ppsp] next step of tracker document

[zhangyunfei <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jinwei,
    For point1, when you mention peer IP address is optional to identify the peer. Do you mean it's *feasible* or a *suitable candidate*? If it were the case, I agree with you at this point.
   For  point2, the consensus in last IETF on this draft should be "concentrating on the message* if I don't remember wrong. Regarding the encoding part, you can ask Wes and Fabio for more comments.

Thanks.
BR
Yunfei 



zhangyunfei

From: Xiajinwei
Date: 2012-09-10 15:51
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [ppsp] next step of tracker document
Hi all,
 
I notice there are two concerns in tracker document from IETF 84 meeting minutes, in order to accelerate the processing of this document, I’d like to show my understanding firstly. Hope we can push this work forward and get consensus as soon as possible.
 
1, Peer ID is global unique to identify the Peer, from this point of view, the Peer IP address is optional to identify the Peer. IMO it could be useful in a closed swarm scenario, in which the peers (both leech and seed) are behind the NAT and they can share the media content in the local domain (e.g., enterprise inside). If I am right, I suggest some text should be given to describe this scenario.
 
2, Encoding xml or binary experiences a long discussion, different person have different preference. One compromise is encoding and decoding XML in binary, the related context is specified in W3C Efficient XML Interchange Working Group or in ISO/IEC 23001-Part 1 ”Binary MPEG format for XML”. Therefore, encoding both XML and HTTP in binary format are implementation options. The draft can have a couple of paragraphs providing those options in terms of implementation notes.
 
Any comments?
 
Thank you!
 
 
Jinwei