Re: [ppsp] 答复: WG item adoption confirmation

["Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Akbar,

Thanks for your comments. 

See inline please.

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of

> Rahman, Akbar

> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 1:59 AM

> To: [e-mail]

> Cc: Martin Stiemerling

> Subject: Re: [ppsp] 答复: WG item adoption confirmation

> 

> Hi,

> 

> 

> I have read the draft, draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol, and have the following

> comments:

> 

> 1) In section 1 (Intro), there is the statement " At present, this draft attempts to

>    allow for both a BitTorrent style offline and real-time streaming protocol, but may

>    currently be biased a bit toward the offline approach, since the decision of the

> WG

>    is to use BitTorrent as a reference."

> 

>    I don't think this is accurate.  I do not see anywhere in the charter, problem

>    Statement or requirements where this type of assumption is made.  Can the

> authors

>    please explain why they say this?  And also explain the impacts to the draft if

>    this statement is proved to be wrong?

 

[gyj] This assumption is a legacy from previous version, I should remove it. After discussion on previous meetings and on mailing list, most voice from PPSP WG support text-based encoding. Hence, I move binary encoding to appendix, so that we could recover it if we encounter overwhelming support to binary encoding in IETF 80. Seems that people were okay with text-based encoding in IETF 80 and I will remove appendix in later version.

 

 

> 2) How are the Trackers discovered?  In section 4.2.1 (Bootstrapping) it simply

> says

>    that "Tracker discovery is out of scope of this specification".  I think we need

>    to be a bit more prescriptive then this.

 

[gyj] In draft-ietf-ppsp-reqs-02, section 4.2, it says “the tracker discovery and the possible communication
   between trackers are out of the scope of tracker protocol” . That’s why we make this description in Tracker protocol draft.

 

> 3) I think we need to have a separate "Security Considerations" section in the

> document

>    as is usually found in most drafts.  At the present time, there are security related

>    points spread throughout the document and I found it hard to deduce the overall

>    security approach.

[gyj] You are right, we need a dedicated “Security considerations”. This will be improved in later version. 

> 

> 

> I am OK to adopt the draft as a WG document after my comments are addressed.

> 

[gyj] Thanks for your comments and support.

> Akbar

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ning

> Zong

> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 7:27 AM

> To: 'Martin Stiemerling'; 'zhangyunfei'; 'Cullen Jennings'; [e-mail]

> Subject: [ppsp] 答复: WG item adoption confirmation

> 

> Hi,

> 

> I read the draft and support to adopt it as a starting point for "Tracker

> Protocol" deliverable. I'd also like to contribute to it by keeping it align

> with requirement draft.

> 

> BR,

> Ning Zong

> 

> -----邮件原件-----

> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Martin

> Stiemerling

> 发送时间: 2011年4月5日 22:57

> 收件人: zhangyunfei; Cullen Jennings; [e-mail]

> 主题: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation

> 

> Dear all,

> 

> I have serious doubts about whether the working group has read the draft and

> is fine with the impending adoption as WG item.

> 

> Basically, only Roni has expressed feedback to this.

> 

> I would suggest that the WG reads the draft and gives feedback until April

> 10th if the draft is **ok** to be accepted as WG item or if it is **not

> ok**.

> 

> Not sending any email to the list (i.e., pure silence) would read in my

> opinion as "we just do not care" and not as accept as WG item. Don't care

> doesn't seem to be a good option...

> 

> Thanks,

> 

>   Martin

> 

> 

> [e-mail]

> 

> 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:[e-mail]]

> > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:22 AM

> > To: Cullen Jennings; [e-mail]

> > 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： [e-mail]

> > 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

> > [e-mail]

> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

> _______________________________________________

> ppsp mailing list

> [e-mail]

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> ppsp mailing list

> [e-mail]

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

> _______________________________________________

> ppsp mailing list

> [e-mail]

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp