Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation
"Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com> Thu, 21 April 2011 13:48 UTC
Return-Path: <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>
X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546E6E0689 for <ppsp@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.411
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.411 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.463, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_83=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uiao8jyrPQr8 for <ppsp@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from idcout.InterDigital.com (idcexmail.interdigital.com [12.32.197.135]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B9EE00BE for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SAM.InterDigital.com ([10.30.2.12]) by idcout.InterDigital.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:48:31 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC002A.CCAB3926"
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:48:30 -0400
Message-ID: <D60519DB022FFA48974A25955FFEC08C03C8C45B@SAM.InterDigital.com>
In-Reply-To: <201104181038582999657@chinamobile.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation
Thread-Index: AcwAAbT+bGu6dr3+SeqEb+0Dxp88FAAKMB2w
References: <A983EEA5-B6A5-40B4-A400-4D4B0F2C88A1@cisco.com><201103291621340759227@chinamobile.com><E84E7B8FF3F2314DA16E48EC89AB49F005D3A297@Polydeuces.office.hd><201104121203222940840@chinamobile.com><08E397856DC04A468C8283DC63E5EFDB013DAEBF@CNBEEXC007.nsn-intra.net><BANLkTimkY9ATgB0Sv3SFisYETFona4FO6Q@mail.gmail.com><08E397856DC04A468C8283DC63E5EFDB013DB06D@CNBEEXC007.nsn-intra.net> <201104181038582999657@chinamobile.com>
From: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com>
To: zhangyunfei <zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2011 13:48:31.0111 (UTC) FILETIME=[CCC6D170:01CC002A]
Cc: ppsp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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, 21 Apr 2011 13:48:34 -0000
Hi Yunfei, I support your proposal for analyzing the encoding issue (as per the quote below) “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 strength and drawback of both encodings in the protocol draft.” Akbar From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of zhangyunfei Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 10:39 PM To: Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing); ext Ping Pan Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Hi all, As the co-chair,I would suggest to concentrate the discussion on the techincal issues. My understanding is that the current draft is indeed *vegetables*. It may be not perfect now. But anyway it's not *steak*. This is just what the WG should do to improve the draft quality accroding to the techincal discussion. Shall I ask the WG: For the encoding issue, who doesn't think that it's a reasonable way to add the comparison analysis part betwwen binary and text in the draft, in the context of no convincing reason to use binary?Shall we move forward the draft in this way? Yunfei ________________________________ zhangyunfei 2011-04-18 ________________________________ 发件人: Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing) 发送时间: 2011-04-17 16:54:58 收件人: ext Ping Pan 抄送: ext zhangyunfei; Martin Stiemerling; ppsp@ietf.org 主题: 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:ping@pingpan.org] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:57 PM To: Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing) Cc: ext zhangyunfei; Martin Stiemerling; ppsp@ietf.org 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) <lin.xiao@nsn.com> 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: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext zhangyunfei Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:03 PM To: Martin Stiemerling; ppsp@ietf.org 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: ppsp@ietf.org 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 martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu 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:zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:22 AM > To: Cullen Jennings; ppsp@ietf.org > 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: ppsp@ietf.org > 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 > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp _______________________________________________ ppsp mailing list ppsp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp _______________________________________________ ppsp mailing list ppsp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
- [ppsp] Notes from PPSP meeting IETF80 Cullen Jennings
- [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation zhangyunfei
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Roni Even
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Martin Stiemerling
- [ppsp] 答复: WG item adoption confirmation Ning Zong
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Ping Pan
- Re: [ppsp] 答复: WG item adoption confirmation Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation zhangyunfei
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation li.lichun1
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Ping Pan
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Ping Pan
- Re: [ppsp] 答复: WG item adoption confirmation Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation li.lichun1
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation zhangyunfei
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Ping Pan
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation David A. Bryan
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation zhangyunfei
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Martin Stiemerling