[ppsp] ***SPAM*** 8.616 (5) Re: 答复: Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding

"Fei Song" <fsong@bjtu.edu.cn> Thu, 20 November 2014 01:12 UTC

Return-Path: <fsong@bjtu.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFC71A86E2 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:12:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 8.616
X-Spam-Level: ********
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=8.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_BLANKS=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=1.012, RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT=1.449, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0a5MsIP6iFxG for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:12:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bjtu.edu.cn (mail.bjtu.edu.cn []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B28781A877D for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 17:12:28 -0800 (PST)
X-EMDG-ORIGINAL-FROM: <fsong@bjtu.edu.cn>
X-EMDG-ORIGINAL-TO: <ppsp@ietf.org>
X-EMDG-VER: 4.1.1
Received: (eyou anti_spam gateway 4.1.0); Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:04:41 +0800
X-EMDG-MID: <616445481.03355@bjtu.edu.cn>
X-EMDG-SMTPAUTH: fsong@bjtu.edu.cn
Received: from by with SMTP; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:04:41 +0800
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:12:53 +0800
From: Fei Song <fsong@bjtu.edu.cn>
To: Zongning <zongning@huawei.com>, 邓灵莉/Lingli Deng <denglingli@chinamobile.com>, "ppsp@ietf.org" <ppsp@ietf.org>
References: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779661DB7CE@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <00b001cfff9b$6109f510$231ddf30$@com>, <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC666779661DBBB1@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <201411200912520787195@bjtu.edu.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/VSOJ8N91J_nQgwNpQQF5snpUTO0
Subject: [ppsp] ***SPAM*** 8.616 (5) Re: 答复: Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: fsong <fsong@bjtu.edu.cn>
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: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 01:12:32 -0000

Hi all£¬

Text-based encoding is better £¨for me£©, such as JSON, it¡¯s easy for reading and coding.

Fei Song
>Hi, Lingli,
>Yunfei and I are working on roadmap of all I-Ds in PPSP, and will post on the list soon.
>The poll for encoding will be open till the *end of next week*.
>·¢¼þÈË: µËÁéÀò/Lingli Deng [mailto:denglingli@chinamobile.com]
>·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2014Äê11ÔÂ13ÈÕ 13:42
>ÊÕ¼þÈË: Zongning; ppsp@ietf.org
>Ö÷Ìâ: RE: [ppsp] Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding
>Dear Chairs,
>Speaking as one of the co-authors for the base tracker protocol, we are happy to take whatever the group feels right.
>But would you mind setting a clear time limit for this poll?
>From: ppsp [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zongning
>Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:28 AM
>To: ppsp@ietf.org<mailto:ppsp@ietf.org>
>Subject: [ppsp] Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding
>Hi, all,
>Firstly, thanks to the co-authors of Base Tracker Protocol for persistently moving the draft forward.
>Now the outstanding issue is that as a Standard Track document, we really NEED to agree on a mandatory encoding for the interoperable on-the-wire Tracker Protocol. As discussed in the PPSP session today, we will start WGLC for the draft, provided that we can reach a rough consensus on the encoding option and the co-authors revise the draft accordingly.
>Currently we have two options mentioned in the draft ¨C they are text based and binary based. For an exemplary comparison, please see Section 3.1 in the draft. Could folks in the group give their opinions on which encoding option is preferred for Tracker Protocol, and why? People are welcome to give other options beyond text and binary, but please do show us the reason for choosing them.
>The during of this call will not last too long, before the co-chairs will make a decision. So, please do contribute your technical expertise in this perspective, to enlight the group.
>-Yunfei & Ning