IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ppsp] Notes from the online discussion

"yunfei" <hishigh@sina.com> Fri, 24 October 2014 10:00 UTC

Return-Path: <hishigh@sina.com>
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 23B751A8963 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 5QuQFVr2thTX for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2911-208.mail.sina.com.cn (mail228-175.sinamail.sina.com.cn [60.28.228.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D66211A8953 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 03:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown( HELO webmail.sinamail.sina.com.cn)([172.16.201.22]) by sina.com with SMTP 24 Oct 2014 18:00:03 +0800 (CST)
X-Sender: hishigh@sina.com
X-SMAIL-MID: 56346113001894
Received: by webmail.sinamail.sina.com.cn (Postfix, from userid 80) id 7F276405C1; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:00:03 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:00:03 +0800
Received: from hishigh@sina.com([58.251.73.228]) by m0.mail.sina.com.cn via HTTP; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:00:03 +0800 (CST)
From: yunfei <hishigh@sina.com>
To: ppsp <ppsp@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MessageID: 544a23231394db9
X-Originating-IP: [172.16.201.22]
X-Mailer: Sina WebMail 4.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-sinamail_alt_672cab39983dbc748e5cec4c91fe146e"
Message-Id: <20141024100003.7F276405C1@webmail.sinamail.sina.com.cn>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/k2JM0fO48FryP3iG1YMA3mFCSM4
Subject: [ppsp] Notes from the online discussion
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: hishigh@sina.com
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: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:00:10 -0000

Hi all,
    The following is the quick notes from the online discussion.
 
Attendees: Yunfei, Rachel, Mi, Jianwei,Dave,K?
Base tracker protocol:
1. Yunfei: See comments from Roni (Thanks Roni) and also sent comments to the mailing list. Rachel reeplied in the mailing list.
2. Dave: Efficiency comparison bw text based and binary protocol. 
    Rachel and Yunfei recalled the history of this problem and the current WG consensus is to let the encoding issue out of scope of the current protocol development and focus on syntax and sementics.
3. Yunfei calls for more volunteered experts to review the base tracker protocol so that the WG can stablize and finalize the draft.
 
Extended tracker protocol:
1. Yunfei: The chunk addressing issue. The draft states that one swarm support one kind of chunk addressing. So who decides the chunk addressing scheme? The first peer or the content provider? It should be explict.
    Rachel: Content provider. 
   Yunfei: Suggest to ask for Arno to clarify if it is easy to convert from one kind of chunk addressing scheme to another( has the impression that it is easy in the peer protocol draft). If it were the case, it will provide the content owner a good feather to easily attract more peers who will otherwise supports only one kind of chunk addressing scheme in the software. 
 
BR
Yunfei

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email