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

Hi to all,

About the specification language to used, I don't prefer this or other
language. Arno already sugested XDR and Rachel sugested JSON or YANG. I
think that base protocol is well defined in high level point of view. The
main issue is on-the-wired encoding.

Personally, I prefer binary encoded protocols. They are compact, and if
well defined, they are simple and very efficient. The problem is that they
are complex to use and/or implement.

The Tracker Protocol should be text encoded (imho, JSON) on-the-wired over
HTTP, for now. This will allow faster testing and adoption. Since messages
are historically defined in a hierarchical way from XML sharing elements,
we will be able to discuss binaries hierarchical structures (e.g. mp4box or
something like icmp) to get a binary encoding that match current abstract
protocol.

For now, I think we should use JSON over HTTP.

Best Regards,
João Pedro Taveira

On Thu Nov 13 2014 at 8:05:21 AM Huangyihong (Rachel) <
rachel.huang@huawei.com> wrote:

>  Hi  all,
>
>
>
> IMHO, text encoding makes more sense to me. It’s prevalently used in
> application protocols over HTTP (e.g., alto protocol). And maybe we could
> use standard languages, like JSON or YANG to specify our messages (not just
> current C language). As for the efficiency issue,  it may be more efficient
> when parsing the binary encoding than text encoding. But the advantage is
> very limited from my point of view. And I don’t see such  efficient issue
> raised in current web servers (which accept text encoding).
>
>
>
> BR,
>
> Rachel
>
>
>
> *From:* ppsp [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Zongning
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:28 AM
> *To:* 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 – 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
>  _______________________________________________
> ppsp mailing list
> ppsp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
>