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

"qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn" <qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn> Wed, 30 December 2015 08:55 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 EC5E91A1AFB for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 00:55:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.989
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 iMypsd94RY9M for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 00:55:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C369B1A1AF6 for <storagesync@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 00:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CNNIC-PC (unknown [218.241.103.142]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0A5QDgHnINWRC4nCQ--.30947S2; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:55:36 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:55:19 +0800
From: "qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn" <qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn>
To: storagesync <storagesync@ietf.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 5, 136[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2015123016551968347627@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart117381802641_=----"
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0A5QDgHnINWRC4nCQ--.30947S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWrur43tw1UCr47Zw4fCr1ftFb_yoW8Jr1rpr 13Jr17JF1DJ345Xr1UXw4xWrWUJF1xKw47XF18Jr18Jrn8ZF10gF17trWrAr9rJryUtw1j qr4Yqa45AF4UJaDanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUmCb7Iv0xC_Cr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Xr0_Ar1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW0oVCq3wA2z4x0Y4vEx4 A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_GcCE3s1le2I262IYc4CY6c8Ij28IcVAaY2xG8wAqx4xG62kEwI0E Y4vaYxAvb48xMc02F40Ex2IqxVA2YxCjr7Iv64kEw24lYx0E2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr 4lYx0Ex4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMcvjeVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvY0x0EwIxG rwACY4xI67k04243AVAKzVAKj4xxM4xvF2IEb7IF0Fy26I8I3I1l7480Y4vEI4kI2Ix0rV Aqx4xJMxkIecxEwVAFwVW8ZwCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwCFx2IqxVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8 JwC20s026c02F40E14v26r106r1rMI8I3I0E7480Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1V AFwI0_Jr0_JrylIxkGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rW3Jr0E3s1lIxAIcV C2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCE64xvF2IEb7IF 0Fy7YxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07jxJ5wUUUUU=
X-CM-SenderInfo: xtlq5x5drzvxw6fq0xffof0/
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/storagesync/MCvCN4q7NGTKyh3K2rzrAQ-0n4U>
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: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:55:46 -0000

hi,
End users may be more concerned about the improvement of the upload rate. According to the report in"http://testmyiphone.com",  the average downstream throughput is more than 4490 Kbps, the average upstream throughput is only about 869 Kbps.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the latest version. Please email me if anything is missed:
1.The design targets of WebDAV, rsync and other existing approaches?
2.The potential use cases of ISS, such as client/server, git-like pattern, svn, etc.
3.The efficiency improvements might be the second goal for standardizing ISS protocol
4.CORS headers on storage sync APIs
5.What is needed for the ISS: a sync protocol or a generalized API
6.remoteStorage draft discussion
  a)relationship vs WebDAV
  b)MOVE action (synchronization) should be added or not
  c)Beside web browser, desktop apps (by hacking way)
  d)comics of new standard
  e)etag issues vs metadata
    i.is mainly for identifying whether a document is changed or not
    ii.is easy to implement than that of WebDAV sync protocol or not
    iii.the metadata file contains all etags for all files at both client and server side or not
  f)the distributed peer model (no server) and C/S mode
  g)a fancy example (with pics) of OfflineIMAP’s sync process in following URL