Re: [ppsp] WG item adoption confirmation

[Ping Pan <[e-mail]>]

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) <[e-mail]>

>  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:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf
> Of *ext zhangyunfei
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:03 PM
> *To:* Martin Stiemerling; [e-mail]
> *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：* [e-mail]
> *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
>
>
> [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
>
>