IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Storagesync] recent issues discussed (plain text)

"qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn" <qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn> Tue, 05 January 2016 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8AEF1A00E6 for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 00:58:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.571
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.981, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 bh-8znCGG9Xc for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 00:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64351A00E5 for <storagesync@ietf.org.>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 00:58:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CNNIC-PC (unknown [218.241.103.77]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0A5QDi6hYtWag4pCQ--.33700S2; Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:58:34 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:58:18 +0800
From: "qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn" <qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn>
To: storagesync, fsong <fsong@bjtu.edu.cn>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 5, 136[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2016010516581844207610@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart375710108100_=----"
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0A5QDi6hYtWag4pCQ--.33700S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjDUn29KB7ZKAUJUUUUU529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7v73 VFW2AGmfu7bjvjm3AaLaJ3UjIYCTnIWjp_UUUOI7k0a2IF6FyUM7kC6x804xWl14x267AK xVWUJVW8JwAFc2x0x2IEx4CE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrJVCq3wAFIxvE14AKwVWUJVWUGw A2ocxC64kIII0Yj41l84x0c7CEw4AK67xGY2AK021l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvE14v26ryj 6F1UM28EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26F4j6r4UJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26r xl6s0DM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW0oVCq3wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv 0487Mc02F40Ex7xS67I2xxkvbII20VAFz48EcVAYj21l5I8CrVC20s02628v4x8GjsIEw4 AK0wAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCj c4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JM4xvF2IEb7IF0Fy264kE64k0F24lFcxC0VAYjx AxZF0Ex2IqxwCY02Avz4vE14v_GFyl42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_ Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUGVWUWwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1V AY17CE14v26r1Y6r17MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAI cVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrJr0_WFyUJw CI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMVCEFcxC 0VAYjxAxZFUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU0YhF3UUUUU==
X-CM-SenderInfo: xtlq5x5drzvxw6fq0xffof0/
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/storagesync/2IObCGw5KT6IAkVuo-fIKh3hNqs>
Subject: Re: [Storagesync] recent issues discussed (plain text)
X-BeenThere: storagesync@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mechanisms to synchronize client file systems with Internet-based data storage services <storagesync.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/storagesync>, <mailto:storagesync-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/storagesync/>
List-Post: <mailto:storagesync@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storagesync-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync>, <mailto:storagesync-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 08:58:42 -0000

Hi,Fei>If I did not get wrong, this issue is complicated and should be seperated into multiple steps. >like protocol improvement, deployment optimization, etc.I deeply agree with you. That is a great problem, but, IMO, is worth doing.  If needed, I will outline what should we do about that.Best wishes!Xiao wei Qin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email