Re: [ppsp] New comments for extend tracker protocol

"Fei Song" <fsong@bjtu.edu.cn> Mon, 13 October 2014 01:32 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA77E1A014D for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 18:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <Vzv7UyU1BMxk>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.226
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=1.012, RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT=1.449, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vzv7UyU1BMxk for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 18:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bjtu.edu.cn (mail.bjtu.edu.cn [218.249.29.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 14C7A1A020A for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 18:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-EYOU-SPAMVALUE: 0
X-EMDG-ORIGINAL-FROM: <fsong@bjtu.edu.cn>
X-EMDG-ORIGINAL-TO: <ppsp@ietf.org>
X-EMDG-ORIGINAL-IP: 211.71.74.136
X-EMDG-VER: 4.1.0
Received: (eyou anti_spam gateway 4.1.0); Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:25:07 +0800
Message-ID: <613163507.04519@bjtu.edu.cn>
X-EMDG-SMTPAUTH: fsong@bjtu.edu.cn
Received: from 211.71.74.136 by 218.249.29.198 with SMTP; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:25:07 +0800
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 09:32:37 +0800
From: Fei Song <fsong@bjtu.edu.cn>
To: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" <rachel.huang@huawei.com>, "ppsp@ietf.org" <ppsp@ietf.org>
References: <201410130805033905271@bjtu.edu.cn>, <613162321.06346@bjtu.edu.cn>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.91[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <201410130932364213196@bjtu.edu.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/ZLKqmXr4z5iM9ZxeiP-R9T1r7f8
Cc: hkzhang <hkzhang@bjtu.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [ppsp] New comments for extend tracker protocol
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: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 01:32:39 -0000

Hi Rachel:

For the second point, I think it is great to use "one" : )

--------------
Fei Song
>Hi Fei,
>
>Thanks again for your careful review and comments. Please see inline.
>
>BR,
>Rachel
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ppsp [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fei Song
>> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 8:05 AM
>> To: ppsp@ietf.org
>> Subject: [ppsp] New comments for extend tracker protocol
>> 
>> Hi Rachel:
>> 
>> 1. 4.3. Usage of Extended Request Messages Section 4.3 gives a clear usage of
>> the extended request messages. The statement is good. Since this part is
>> trying to demonstrate the benefits of using DISCONNECT and other extended
>> messages, more description will be helpful here.
>
>[Rachel]: Yes, you're right. Will do it.
>
>> 2. Section 3.2, the first sentence: "A peer may have the requirement to start
>> streaming the content from some specific point of the content timeline." Point
>> or Points?
>
>[Rachel]: it's "point". I'll use "one" instead of "some" to avoid ambiguity. What do you think?
>
>> 3. In both base draft and extended draft, we can see the "Per-Peer-ID
>> Transaction State Machine" figure. Section 2.4 of PPSP base tracker protocol
>> indicates that the START state is transient. I don't know whether it is suitable
>> to mark "Transient" just next to the "PEER REGISTERD state" block.
>
>[Rachel]: Marking "PEER REGISTRERED" state with "Transient" is because we don't have to wait for any messages in this state. When a tracker receives the CONNECT message from a new peer, it will move the peer's state from START to PEER REGISTERED. After analyzing and authenticating the CONNECT message, the tracker moves the states to either "TRACKING" or "TERMINATE". So this state is quite short, depending on the time that the tracker deals with the new CONNECT message.
>
>> 
>> 
>> Best Regards!
>> 
>> Fei Song
>> _______________________________________________
>> ppsp mailing list
>> ppsp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp