[ppsp] next step of tracker document

Xiajinwei <xiajinwei@huawei.com> Mon, 10 September 2012 07:52 UTC

Return-Path: <xiajinwei@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F98921F8498 for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id epQoihaLXXii for <ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7DE21F848B for <ppsp@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AKM96140; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:52:39 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:52:31 +0100
Received: from SZXEML435-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:52:35 +0800
Received: from SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by szxeml435-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:51:52 +0800
From: Xiajinwei <xiajinwei@huawei.com>
To: "ppsp@ietf.org" <ppsp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: next step of tracker document
Thread-Index: Ac2PKSK8zjA9Okn0RNa4q2/8XXbXvw==
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:51:51 +0000
Message-ID: <A8219E7785257C47B75B6DCE682F8D2F2BFC8660@SZXEML511-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A8219E7785257C47B75B6DCE682F8D2F2BFC8660SZXEML511MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: [ppsp] next step of tracker document
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, 10 Sep 2012 07:52:43 -0000

Hi all,

I notice there are two concerns in tracker document from IETF 84 meeting minutes, in order to accelerate the processing of this document, I'd like to show my understanding firstly. Hope we can push this work forward and get consensus as soon as possible.

1, Peer ID is global unique to identify the Peer, from this point of view, the Peer IP address is optional to identify the Peer. IMO it could be useful in a closed swarm scenario, in which the peers (both leech and seed) are behind the NAT and they can share the media content in the local domain (e.g., enterprise inside). If I am right, I suggest some text should be given to describe this scenario.

2, Encoding xml or binary experiences a long discussion, different person have different preference. One compromise is encoding and decoding XML in binary, the related context is specified in W3C Efficient XML Interchange Working Group or in ISO/IEC 23001-Part 1 "Binary MPEG format for XML". Therefore, encoding both XML and HTTP in binary format are implementation options. The draft can have a couple of paragraphs providing those options in terms of implementation notes.

Any comments?

Thank you!