Re: [ppsp] 回复: 答复: next step of tracker document

Zongning <> Mon, 17 September 2012 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1BA21F843A for <>; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.774
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.774 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.824, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sKQrgxK+HaJt for <>; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBBC021F842B for <>; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 18:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AKS52038; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 01:27:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:27:35 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:27:50 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:27:39 +0800
From: Zongning <>
To: zhangyunfei <>, Xiajinwei <>, ppsp <>
Thread-Topic: =?gb2312?B?W3Bwc3BdILvYuLQ6ILTwuLQ6ICBuZXh0IHN0ZXAgb2YgdHJhY2tlciBkb2N1?= =?gb2312?Q?ment?=
Thread-Index: AQHNjzznQuldwh0uBkGWBhQ6MC8KnpeNx2Xw
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 01:27:38 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC66677924AE6F94szxeml504mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [ppsp] =?gb2312?b?u9i4tDogtPC4tDogIG5leHQgc3RlcCBvZiB0cmFja2Vy?= =?gb2312?b?IGRvY3VtZW50?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 01:27:54 -0000

For point two, I agree that we can move the encoding part of tracker protocol to appendix, as both XML and binary are at least feasible.
But I would *strongly* want to hear the comments from the people raising this issue in last PPSP session about encoding ¨C for example, efficiency concerns?


From: [] On Behalf Of zhangyunfei
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 6:13 PM
To: Xiajinwei; ppsp
Subject: [ppsp] »Ø¸´: ´ð¸´: next step of tracker document

Hi Jinwei (Speaking individually),
     My suggestion is to consider peer IP(private, public)+port(private, public) for the purpose of identifying the peer. Is it enough? Or we may need more information for the identification.
     I am not meaning totally removing the encoding in the tracker protocol. However I suggest in current stage, encoding part may be placed in the appendix part, as a step to realize the consensus in last IETF.
    Regarding the encoding proposal you raised, my feeling is that we at least need to ask the people with concerns in last IETF (See the minutes) for their comments.



·¢¼þÈË£º Xiajinwei<>
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä£º 2012-09-10 16:36
ÊÕ¼þÈË£º zhangyunfei<>; ppsp<>
Ö÷Ì⣺ ´ð¸´: [ppsp] next step of tracker document
Hi Yunfei,

Wow, your feedback is very prompt!

Yes, the Peer IP information can be used in a limited scenario, for example, all the peers are in a enterprise network and are behind the enterprise NAT, they can transmit the enterprise files among the enterprise network via their local IP addresses. But the Peer ID is mandatory and can¡¯t be replaced by Peer IP information IMHO.

Do you mean the conclusion is removing encoding type related text from this document? if yes, will the text be moved into another document, e.g., tracker extension draft?

Thank you!


·¢¼þÈË: zhangyunfei []
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2012Äê9ÔÂ10ÈÕ 16:16
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Xiajinwei; ppsp
Ö÷Ìâ: Re: [ppsp] next step of tracker document

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.


From: Xiajinwei<>
Date: 2012-09-10 15:51
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!