[ppsp] 答复: Call for WG consensus on Tracker Protocol encoding

[Zongning <[e-mail]>]

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*.

Thanks.

-Ning

发件人: 邓灵莉/Lingli Deng [mailto:[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2014年11月13日 13:42
收件人: Zongning; [e-mail]
主题: 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?

Thanks,
Lingli

From: ppsp [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zongning
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:28 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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 – 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.

Thanks.

-Yunfei & Ning