Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation
"Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <guyingjie@huawei.com> Mon, 18 April 2011 01:28 UTC
Return-Path: <guyingjie@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8717AE0761 for <ppsp@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.114
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.114 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_83=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U3SRlhJtwKhu for <ppsp@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646A8E0756 for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LJT00EWOQS172@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ppsp@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:28:50 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LJT00HMBQS1EK@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ppsp@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:28:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from SZXEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.35) by szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:28:46 +0800
Received: from g00107907 (10.138.41.104) by szxeml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:28:47 +0800
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:24:54 +0800
From: "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <guyingjie@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <08E397856DC04A468C8283DC63E5EFDB013DB06D@CNBEEXC007.nsn-intra.net>
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.104]
To: "'Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing)'" <lin.xiao@nsn.com>, 'ext Ping Pan' <ping@pingpan.org>
Message-id: <007501cbfd67$6ce7cae0$68298a0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_MdkYc0jsSGPMRvs21eSO1A)"
Thread-index: Acv7dSRxJvlEvmwyQw+FXTOsfxBIvwBZlJIgACHWx5A=
Cc: ppsp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation
X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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, 18 Apr 2011 01:28:57 -0000
Hi, Thank all of you for your comments and supports. All comments are aiming to make the draft more suitable for a WG item, though people may have different ideas on adoption. I always agree the draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol still need improvement no matter we adopt it now or later. As answer to chairs’ and other experts comments, 1) composing a section to ‘analyze the strengh and drawback of both encodings in the protocol draft’, It’s okay to add some analysis text in the draft, but since we can not make an accurate calculation on bandwidth consuming before we make exact messages definition, I don’t think the analysis text will include bandwidth consuming calculation comparison between text-based and binary based. Besides, since we already have a rough consensus on Text-based encoding, I think we can answer the encoding question as “text-based encoding”. Any objection to this? The draft has described a HTTP-based encoding. 2) As for Transport protocol, as Yunfei has said as a chair, this has been clarified in Charter. Personally, I think TCP is okay for Tracker protocol, but UDP is better for Peer protocol. This is idea is also from some other people I talked with. But currently, the WG has not make any decision that Transport protocol choice is in scope of Tracker and Peer Protocol, so Tracker protocol authors will follow WG Charter for now, unless Transport protocol choice is pushed to PPSP protocol design. 3) As for NAT Traversal, there is already a good draft to analyzing and providing solution to it. Tracker protocol will receive the requirements from the NAT draft and make sure Tracker protocol is able to support common requirements for various NAT Traversal solution. 4) There is some confusing description, most in introduction section, the authors promise to revise it next version. 5) The Binary encoding, which is in appendix now, will be removed in next version. Are there other major comments I missed? If you have any objection to the above answer, please voice out, so that the WG can have a discussion on that. If there is no objection, will the Chairs be glad with rough consensus on the above comments? Again, thank all of you and all the comments are highly appreciated. BR Yingjie _____ From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing) Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:54 PM To: ext Ping Pan Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation I don't think it's fanny at all! I remember the WG chairs showed the same idea with me, and got the consensus at the meeting. If it's a vegetarian restaurant, no one will cook steak for you.You can say the food is not that good, but I believe it's still vegetable. What's your solution? Cook yourself? or I think we should help the chef to improve the quality of the food "in the restaurant". Or if you are not interested in the restaurant, you can just leave. _____ From: ext Ping Pan [mailto:ping@pingpan.org] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:57 PM To: Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing) Cc: ext zhangyunfei; Martin Stiemerling; ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Interesting logic! I go a restaurant for vegetarian food. Instead, I'm offered with steak. What would my choices? Eat the meat because it's cooked already? Have a salad and let it go by? Leave the restaurant altogether? Or ask the chef to prepare the food I want? 2011/4/15 Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing) <lin.xiao@nsn.com> Hi, I think PPSP WG has the interest to study the PPSP tracker protocol,and "draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol-03" is the only draft on the table, so we should accept this as WG draft. It's true that efforts are still needed to improve the quality of the draft, but more work still can be done after it's accepted as a WG draft, right? Do we have another choice? BR Lin _____ From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext zhangyunfei Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:03 PM To: Martin Stiemerling; ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Hi all, For the transport protocol, which is beyond the current scope of PPSP, as suggested in the charter. However when we talk about the transport protocol used in practice for P2P streaming applications, UDP has been seen the most commonly used protocol now, with the transition from TCP to UDP both for data transport. And many applications(e.g., ppstream, pplive) even change from TCP to use UDP for signaling transport(draft-zhang-ppsp-protocol-comparison-measurement-00). The rational behind this is that firstly, streaming applications *don't*care much of packet loss and secondly, p2p streaming tracker and peer query mechanism ensures there are *enough* active peers to exchange data, so a peer doesn't care *much* if one request is successfully transmitted or not. This is proven in wired network. But when we consider a converged environment, we may need more investigation on whether UDP is *enough* for transport. For the encoding issue, since we polled and seems "text" is acceptable by most guys and there are some uncertainty on "binary", I would suggest (individually) to add one section to analyze the strengh and drawback of both encodings in the protocol draft. Regarding the WG item adoption, I would like to see that there is rough consensus on the questions recently raised and discussed in the mailing list before the adoption. BR Yunfei _____ zhangyunfei 2011-04-12 _____ 发件人: Martin Stiemerling 发送时间: 2011-04-08 22:25:40 收件人: ppsp@ietf.org 抄送: 主题: Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation [speaking as individual - not as PPSP co-chair] Hi there, Here is my incomplete review of draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol-03 and my opinion of whether it is ready to become WG item: - Why are there still 2 encodings in the draft? Isn't it time to conclude on one encoding? - Section 1: "the main part is the abstract description of the operations...". This means that this is actually not a draft about the tracker protocol? - Section 1: "for both a bittorrent style offline and real-time streaming protocol". Why is it so? We are in PPSP, so we should work on something for streaming, isn't it? - Why is there the notion of battery level in the status messages? - Section 9.1.3: What is the issue with fragmentation in here? - What is the transport protocol where the tracker protocol should run over? The proposed methods look reasonable, but the overall draft organization still suffers from what Section 1 hints to that it is solely an abstract description of the operations. I'm **not** in favor of getting draft-gu-ppsp-tracker-protocol-03 to be a WG item, for these reasons: - document quality is not good enough in my opinion - it is unclear what the transport protocol is. there is a hint to UDP, which is not a good choice to be used in this particular case - there is not yet a real protocol described in the draft, but only the skeletons of two protocols (binary and HTTP). I would suggest (still speaking as individual) to first make some important decisions, e.g., encoding, fix the document, etc and **afterwards** make a new call for WG adoption. Thanks, Martin martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu 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:zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:22 AM > To: Cullen Jennings; ppsp@ietf.org > 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: ppsp@ietf.org > 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 > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp _______________________________________________ ppsp mailing list ppsp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp _______________________________________________ ppsp mailing list ppsp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
- [ppsp] Notes from PPSP meeting IETF80 Cullen Jennings
- [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation zhangyunfei
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Roni Even
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Martin Stiemerling
- [ppsp] 答复: WG item adoption confirmation Ning Zong
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Ping Pan
- Re: [ppsp] 答复: WG item adoption confirmation Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation zhangyunfei
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation li.lichun1
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Ping Pan
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Ping Pan
- Re: [ppsp] 答复: WG item adoption confirmation Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation li.lichun1
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation zhangyunfei
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Ping Pan
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation David A. Bryan
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation zhangyunfei
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Rahman, Akbar
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation Martin Stiemerling