From duanshihui@mail.ritt.com.cn Thu Jul 5 19:34:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5E911E8138 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:34:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.694 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.694 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.512, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_RECV_IP_FROMIP1=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pb5aequ8xHVG for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ritt.com.cn (unknown [114.242.138.101]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3369311E8135 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:34:40 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOU-SPAMVALUE: 0 X-EYOU-DEALDRC: X-EMDG-VER: 2011-01-28 Received: (eyou anti_spam gateway 3.0); Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:34:42 +0800 Message-ID: <541542082.32529@mail.ritt.com.cn> X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: duanshihui@mail.ritt.com.cn Received: from 172.30.10.177 by 172.24.8.100 with SMTP; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:34:42 +0800 From: "duan" To: Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:34:44 +0800 Message-ID: <003801cd5b1f$e79d1e40$b6d75ac0$@ritt.com.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0039_01CD5B62.F5C05E40" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac1bH+as7I9yKSnRRkmD0JwmdMCGAQ== Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: [p2prg] p2p measurement draft X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 02:34:47 -0000 这是一封 MIME 格式的多部分邮件。 ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01CD5B62.F5C05E40 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_003A_01CD5B62.F5C05E40" ------=_NextPart_001_003A_01CD5B62.F5C05E40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, the attached file is a irtf p2prg draft about p2p system measurement. I don't know how to upload draft, pls help to upload this draft to the research group, thanks a lot!!! Would you tell me the way about how to upload drafts to IRTF research group? If possible, I hope we can discuss this draft on the upcoming meeting, expect for your comments. Thanks again!!! ------=_NextPart_001_003A_01CD5B62.F5C05E40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, the attached file is a irtf = p2prg draft about p2p system measurement.

 

I don’t know how to upload = draft, pls help to upload this draft to the research group, thanks a = lot!!!

 

Would you tell me the way about = how to upload drafts to IRTF research group?

 

If possible, I hope we can = discuss this draft on the upcoming meeting, expect for your = comments.

 

Thanks = again!!!

 

------=_NextPart_001_003A_01CD5B62.F5C05E40-- ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01CD5B62.F5C05E40 Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-duan-p2prg-measurement-00.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-duan-p2prg-measurement-00.txt" P2PRG Shihui Duan=0A= Internet Draft China CATR=0A= Intended status: Informational Lifeng.Le=0A= Expires: January 5, 2013 China Mobile=0A= July 5, 2012=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Measurement for P2P system=0A= draft-duan-p2prg-measurement-00.txt=0A= =0A= =0A= Status of this Memo=0A= =0A= This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the=0A= provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.=0A= =0A= Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering=0A= Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that=0A= other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-=0A= Drafts.=0A= =0A= Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six=0A= months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents=0A= at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as=0A= reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."=0A= =0A= The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at=0A= http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt=0A= =0A= The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at=0A= http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html=0A= =0A= This Internet-Draft will expire on Jan 5, 2013.=0A= =0A= Copyright Notice=0A= =0A= Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the=0A= document authors. All rights reserved.=0A= =0A= This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal=0A= Provisions Relating to IETF Documents=0A= (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of=0A= publication of this document. Please review these documents=0A= carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with=0A= respect to this document.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Duan Expires Jan 5, 2013 [Page 1]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft p2p measurement July 5, 2012=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Abstract=0A= =0A= This document introduces general measurement research for p2p=0A= systems. In this document, it first gives the objects for=0A= measurement in p2p network, gives the methodology for p2p=0A= measurement and then describes the material measurement indexed for=0A= p2p network.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Duan Expires Jan 5, 2013 [Page 2]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft p2p measurement July 5, 2012=0A= =0A= Table of Contents=0A= =0A= =0A= 1. Introduction ................................................ 4=0A= 2. Conventions used in this document = ............................ 4=0A= 3. P2p measurement content overview = ............................. 4=0A= 4. P2p measurement methods = ...................................... 5=0A= 4.1. Active measurement method = ............................... 5=0A= 4.2. Passive measurement method = .............................. 5=0A= 5. The measurement indexes for p2p network ...................... 5=0A= 5.1. p2p topology characteristics measurement ................ 5=0A= 5.1.1. Graph property measurement ......................... 6=0A= 5.1.2. Dynamic property measurement ....................... 6=0A= 5.2. p2p traffic characteristics measurement ................. 6=0A= 5.2.1. space characteristics measurement .................. 7=0A= 5.2.2. time characteristics measurement ................... 7=0A= 5.3. p2p availability characteristics measurement ............ 7=0A= 5.3.1. host availability measurement ...................... 7=0A= 5.3.2. content availability measurement ................... 7=0A= 6. Future work ................................................. 8=0A= 7. Acknowledgements ............................................ 8=0A= 8. Security Consideration = ....................................... 8=0A= 9. IANA Considerations ......................................... 8=0A= 10. References ................................................. 8=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Duan Expires Jan 5, 2013 [Page 3]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft p2p measurement July 5, 2012=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= 1. Introduction=0A= =0A= With the progress of peer-to-peer (P2P) technology, the Internet=0A= applications model is in a great reformation. In order to get an=0A= all-win solution among the Internet users, Internet service=0A= providers and content providers, it is necessary to measure and=0A= analyze the P2P applications from their perspectives.=0A= =0A= Measuring and characterizing the properties of p2p networks will=0A= benefit the optimization, management of the p2p systems. It seems=0A= infeasible to capture a complete and precise snapshot of p2p overlay=0A= networks due to the variety of p2p protocols and dynamics of the=0A= servents. Studying the details of p2p protocols and analyzing the=0A= specific p2p overlay network instance become an alternative method=0A= for this goal.=0A= =0A= In this document, the content of P2P measurement is introduced=0A= firstly, and then the existing research on P2P measurement is=0A= classified into 3 areas: topology measurement, traffic measurement=0A= and availability measurement. In each area, it gives the detailed=0A= objects which are concluded from the current research work.=0A= =0A= 2. Conventions used in this document=0A= =0A= The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",=0A= "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this=0A= document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119.=0A= =0A= 3. P2p measurement content overview=0A= =0A= The main task of p2p network measurement is to measure the practical=0A= networks, valuate the operation state of the p2p network and=0A= establish the network behavior analytical model based on=0A= measurements. The p2p network measurement can be divided into three=0A= types according to different content:=0A= =0A= 1.p2p topology characteristics measurement: this measurement will=0A= acquire the overlay topologies for different p2p applications,=0A= analyze the graph property and dynamic property of the=0A= corresponding topology.=0A= =0A= 2.p2p traffic characteristics measurement: this measurement will=0A= acquire all kinds of statistical parameters of p2p traffic,=0A= analyze the space characteristics and time characteristics.=0A= =0A= =0A= Duan Expires Jan 5, 2013 [Page 4]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft p2p measurement July 5, 2012=0A= =0A= 3.p2p availability characteristics measurement: this measurement=0A= will measure the availability for p2p node, resource and ect.=0A= =0A= 4. P2p measurement methods=0A= =0A= According to the different measurement style, the p2p measurement=0A= methods can be divided into active measurement method and passive=0A= measurement method.=0A= =0A= 4.1. Active measurement method=0A= =0A= The active method is to use network crawler to actively join the p2p=0A= network and then get the related properties of the network and peers.=0A= Generally, the crawler joins the p2p system just like the ordinary=0A= peer and then collects the correlative information as much as=0A= possible which usually includes the IP address and port number of=0A= peers and all the metadata which can be obtained by p2p protocol.=0A= =0A= The active method is mainly used to measure the topology, delay,=0A= content availability, peer's microscopic behavior such as=0A= upload/download in p2p network.=0A= =0A= The biggest shortcoming of this method is lack of generality and we=0A= must set up sole crawler for each p2p network.=0A= =0A= 4.2. Passive measurement method=0A= =0A= The passive method is to deploy some measurement points at different=0A= location interspersed in the network and use the specific software=0A= and hardware devices to passively monitor the p2p traffic. In order=0A= to the universality of the measurement data, the measurement=0A= location is generally at the core router in the backbone network or=0A= at the edge entrance of one IPS network.=0A= =0A= This method is used to measure the macroscopic properties of p2p=0A= traffic such as traffic bandwidth of p2p traffic, the number of=0A= peers and the peer connection lasting time.=0A= =0A= The biggest shortcoming of this method is that it can't deeply=0A= understand the p2p network behavior though it has good generality=0A= and can measure many p2p applications.=0A= =0A= 5. The measurement indexes for p2p network=0A= =0A= 5.1. p2p topology characteristics measurement=0A= =0A= The p2p system is an application overlay network Constructed over=0A= the internet and its topology mainly describes the arrangement mode=0A= =0A= =0A= Duan Expires Jan 5, 2013 [Page 5]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft p2p measurement July 5, 2012=0A= =0A= of its peers and how the peers connect to each others. The neighbor=0A= selection policy and peer's join/exit make the p2p application have=0A= the natural dynamic property which causes great difficulty for large=0A= scale p2p network topology measurement. However, the current p2p=0A= topology characteristics measurement includes graph property=0A= measurement and dynamic property measurement.=0A= =0A= 5.1.1. Graph property measurement=0A= =0A= The graph property measurement includes four index: the distribution=0A= of peer connectivity, the distribution of the distance between any=0A= pair of peers, the small world property and the topology elasticity.=0A= =0A= The distribution of peer connectivity is to study the number of=0A= connection of one peer, also called in-degree/out-degree.=0A= =0A= The distribution of the distance between any pair of peers is to=0A= study the shortest path from one peer to any other peer according to=0A= hops. [Stutzbach2005] shows that 60 percent paths have 4 hops coming=0A= from four measurements.=0A= =0A= The small world property is to study the cluster degree of p2p=0A= topology which usually is weighed by clustering coefficient.=0A= [Stutzbach2005] showes that the Gnutella 0.6 network has this=0A= property.=0A= =0A= the topology elasticity is to study the connectivity changes after=0A= deleting some peers.=0A= =0A= 5.1.2. Dynamic property measurement=0A= =0A= For the peer randomly joins/exits the p2p network, the p2p network=0A= topology dynamically changes at the all time. So the study for p2p=0A= network dynamic property is at the starting stage and the current=0A= measurement includes: the connectivity changes among the stable core=0A= overlay, the distribution of peer session time, the distribution of=0A= download time and the association with session time.=0A= =0A= One focus study is to measure churn which is dynamic change caused=0A= by peer joins/exits p2p network. The common indexes which describe=0A= the churn include session time, lifetime, availability and etc.=0A= =0A= 5.2. p2p traffic characteristics measurement=0A= =0A= The p2p traffic characteristics are usually acquired by passively=0A= monitoring the network packets. Along with the development of the=0A= p2p traffic concealment technology and the inhomogeneous=0A= distribution of the peers, how to ensure the accuracy and=0A= =0A= =0A= Duan Expires Jan 5, 2013 [Page 6]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft p2p measurement July 5, 2012=0A= =0A= representativeness of the p2p traffic statistical data becomes the=0A= most important problem for p2p traffic measurement. The p2p traffic=0A= characteristics measurement includes the space characteristics and=0A= time characteristics=0A= =0A= 5.2.1. space characteristics measurement=0A= =0A= The space characteristics of p2p traffic include two sides: one is=0A= the distribution on Regional difference from the macroscopic view,=0A= the other is the heterogeneity between different peer.=0A= =0A= 5.2.2. time characteristics measurement=0A= =0A= The time characteristics of p2p traffic also include two sides: one=0A= is activity during time of day from the macroscopic view, the other=0A= is self-similarity characteristics from the microscopic view.=0A= =0A= 5.3. p2p availability characteristics measurement=0A= =0A= The p2p network availability describes the degree how the user=0A= obtains the services. The p2p network availability is not only=0A= related with the each peer's availability, but also with the=0A= connectivity state of the whole network and peer's join/exit=0A= behavior. The p2p availability measurement includes host=0A= availability measurement and content availability measurement.=0A= =0A= 5.3.1. host availability measurement=0A= =0A= The host availability in p2p network is expressed by the host active=0A= time and the ratio of active host. The general method is to randomly=0A= select a host set under test from the specific p2p network,=0A= periodically send probe messages and count the number of responses.=0A= =0A= 5.3.2. content availability measurement=0A= =0A= The content availability describes the difficult degree that the=0A= user can obtain the target resource for p2p system, that is the=0A= difficult degree of user querying and downloading resource. The=0A= related factors which influence the content availability is more=0A= complicated than those of the host availability, so we only=0A= indirectly reflect this index through five indexes: the number of=0A= reply for a query, the query response time, the content stability,=0A= the multiplicity of the content, download finishing time.=0A= =0A= According the above five indexes, [Christin2005] shows that the=0A= network topology is closely related with the content availability,=0A= the multiplicity of the content usually follows the power-law=0A= distribution.=0A= =0A= =0A= Duan Expires Jan 5, 2013 [Page 7]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft p2p measurement July 5, 2012=0A= =0A= For protecting the digital right, some ICPs use the content=0A= pollution technology in p2p network. The content pollution has=0A= important impact for the content availability and how to measure the=0A= pollution degree is under studying.=0A= =0A= 6. Future work=0A= =0A= The future work is to give some detailed measurement indexes for p2p=0A= system. If possible, we will give the detailed indexes for some=0A= typical and popular p2p system, such as p2p file system, p2p=0A= streaming system.=0A= =0A= 7. Acknowledgements=0A= =0A= No acknowledgements at this time.=0A= =0A= 8. Security Consideration=0A= =0A= This draft does not introduce any new security issues.=0A= =0A= 9. IANA Considerations=0A= =0A= This memo includes no request to IANA.=0A= =0A= 10. References=0A= =0A= [Stutzbach2005] Stutzbach D, Rejaie R, Sen S. Characterizing=0A= unstructured overlay topologies in modern P2P file-sharing=0A= systems. In: Proc. of the 5th ACM SIGCOMM Conf. on=0A= Internet Measurement. 2005.=0A= =0A= [Christin2005] Christin N, Weigend AS, Chuang J. Content=0A= availability, pollution and poisoning in peer-to-peer file=0A= sharing networks. In: Proc. Of the 6th ACM Conf. on=0A= Electronic Commerce (EC 2005). 2005.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Duan Expires Jan 5, 2013 [Page 8]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft p2p measurement July 5, 2012=0A= =0A= Authors' Addresses=0A= =0A= Shihui Duan=0A= China CATR=0A= Beijing 100045, China=0A= Phone: 86-10-62300068=0A= Email: duanshihui@catr.cn=0A= =0A= =0A= Lifeng Le=0A= China Mobile=0A= Beijing 100045, China=0A= Phone: 86-13910019925=0A= Email: lelifeng@chinamobile.com=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Duan Expires Jan 5, 2013 [Page 9]=0A= =0C=0A= ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01CD5B62.F5C05E40-- From volker.hilt@bell-labs.com Fri Jul 6 01:18:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CD321F8697 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 01:18:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1B1UUGd8BB9q for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 01:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D0221F84B9 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 01:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q668Htk6004009 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:18:54 +0200 Received: from [135.244.178.102] (135.120.57.7) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:18:43 +0200 Message-ID: <4FF69F58.7050203@bell-labs.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:18:32 +0200 From: Volker Hilt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: duan References: <003801cd5b1f$e79d1e40$b6d75ac0$@ritt.com.cn> In-Reply-To: <003801cd5b1f$e79d1e40$b6d75ac0$@ritt.com.cn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Cc: p2prg@irtf.org Subject: Re: [p2prg] p2p measurement draft X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:18:48 -0000 Dear Shihui Duan, the P2P RG group is about to close and we are not accepting new drafts at this point. Thanks, Volker On 7/6/2012 4:34 AM, duan wrote: > Hi, the attached file is a irtf p2prg draft about p2p system measurement. > > I don抰 know how to upload draft, pls help to upload this draft to the > research group, thanks a lot!!! > > Would you tell me the way about how to upload drafts to IRTF research group? > > If possible, I hope we can discuss this draft on the upcoming meeting, > expect for your comments. > > Thanks again!!! > From oneingray@gmail.com Sat Jul 7 03:07:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED51921F8546 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2012 03:07:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3HPz6PRLncE6 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2012 03:07:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gray.siamics.net (gray.siamics.net [IPv6:2001:470:b649::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248D621F854D for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2012 03:07:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivan by gray.siamics.net with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SnRvT-0000El-UF; Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:07:43 +0700 From: Ivan Shmakov To: p2prg@irtf.org References: <003801cd5b1f$e79d1e40$b6d75ac0$@ritt.com.cn> <4FF69F58.7050203@bell-labs.com> Sender: ivan@gray.siamics.net Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:07:43 +0700 In-Reply-To: <4FF69F58.7050203@bell-labs.com> (Volker Hilt's message of "Fri, 6 Jul 2012 10:18:32 +0200") Message-ID: <86a9zb995c.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [p2prg] P2PRG closure X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 10:07:31 -0000 >>>>> Volker Hilt writes: [=E2=80=A6] > the P2P RG group is about to close and we are not accepting new > drafts at this point. I guess that the imminent closure should be mentioned on the RG pages: http://irtf.org/p2prg http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/PeerToPeerResearchGroup BTW, are there any still active newsgroups or mailing lists dedicated to P2P (apart from p2p-hackers@ and p2p-foundation@, which I was able to discover recently via Gmane)? TIA. --=20 FSF associate member #7257 From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Sun Jul 8 18:43:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D05BB21F87DD for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 18:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.376 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RYzDtOrSqliS for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 18:43:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2A7B21F877A for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 18:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1377CE602; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:43:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E329EE5FD; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:43:34 +0800 (CST) Received: from zyf-PC ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012070909433297-19557 ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:43:32 +0800 Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:43:30 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: "Ivan Shmakov" , p2prg References: <003801cd5b1f$e79d1e40$b6d75ac0$@ritt.com.cn> <4FF69F58.7050203@bell-labs.com>, <86a9zb995c.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <201207090943307604585@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-07-09 09:43:32, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-07-09 09:43:34, Serialize complete at 2012-07-09 09:43:34 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart773152332638_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-19028.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--13.271-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--13.271-7.0-31-10;No--13.271-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Subject: Re: [p2prg] P2PRG closure X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: zhangyunfei List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 01:43:12 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart773152332638_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" SGksDQogICAgUFBTUEBJRVRGIGlzIGFjdGl2ZSBpbiBwZWVyIHRvIHBlZXIgc3RyZWFtaW5nIHBy b3RvY29sIHJlbGF0ZWQgdG9waWNzLiBXZWxjb21lIHRvIHN1YnNjcmliZS4NCg0KWXVuZmVpDQoN Cg0KDQoNCnpoYW5neXVuZmVpDQoNCkZyb206IEl2YW4gU2htYWtvdg0KRGF0ZTogMjAxMi0wNy0w NyAxODowNw0KVG86IHAycHJnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbcDJwcmddIFAyUFJHIGNsb3N1cmUNCj4+Pj4+ IFZvbGtlciBIaWx0IDx2b2xrZXJoQGJlbGwtbGFicy5jb20+IHdyaXRlczoNCg0KW+KApl0NCg0K ID4gdGhlIFAyUCBSRyBncm91cCBpcyBhYm91dCB0byBjbG9zZSBhbmQgd2UgYXJlIG5vdCBhY2Nl cHRpbmcgbmV3DQogPiBkcmFmdHMgYXQgdGhpcyBwb2ludC4NCg0KSSBndWVzcyB0aGF0IHRoZSBp bW1pbmVudCBjbG9zdXJlIHNob3VsZCBiZSBtZW50aW9uZWQgb24gdGhlIFJHDQpwYWdlczoNCg0K aHR0cDovL2lydGYub3JnL3AycHJnDQpodHRwOi8vdHJhYy50b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9ncm91cC9p cnRmL3RyYWMvd2lraS9QZWVyVG9QZWVyUmVzZWFyY2hHcm91cA0KDQpCVFcsIGFyZSB0aGVyZSBh bnkgc3RpbGwgYWN0aXZlIG5ld3Nncm91cHMgb3IgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0cw0KZGVkaWNhdGVkIHRv IFAyUCAoYXBhcnQgZnJvbSBwMnAtaGFja2Vyc0AgYW5kIHAycC1mb3VuZGF0aW9uQCwNCndoaWNo IEkgd2FzIGFibGUgdG8gZGlzY292ZXIgcmVjZW50bHkgdmlhIEdtYW5lKT8NCg0KVElBLg0KDQot LSANCkZTRiBhc3NvY2lhdGUgbWVtYmVyICM3MjU3DQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KcDJwcmcgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpwMnByZ0BpcnRmLm9y Zw0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pcnRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3AycHJn ------=_001_NextPart773152332638_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" =EF=BB=BF
Hi,
    PPSP@IETF is acti= ve in=20 peer to peer streaming protocol related topics. Welcome to subscribe.
 
Yunfei
 
zhangyunfei
 
Date: 2012-07-07 18:07
To: p2prg
Subject: [p2prg] P2PRG closure
>>>>> Volker Hilt <volkerh@bell-labs= .com> writes:
 
[=E2=80=A6]
 
 > the P2P RG group is about&nb= sp;to close and we are not accepting ne= w
 > drafts at this point.
 
I guess that the imminent closure shoul= d be mentioned on the RG
pages:
 
http://irtf.org/p2prg
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/PeerToPeerResearchGro= up
 
BTW, are there any still active newsgro= ups or mailing lists
dedicated to P2P (apart from p2p-hackers@&nb= sp;and p2p-foundation@,
which I was able to discover recently&n= bsp;via Gmane)?
 
TIA.
 
-- 
FSF associate member #7257
_______________________________________________
p2prg mailing list
p2prg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg
------=_001_NextPart773152332638_=------ From tmomose@cisco.com Sun Jul 8 23:54:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF3311E8079 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 23:54:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.97 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FB_INCREASE_VOL=3.629, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VAvWtU5TtM4F for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 23:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9148511E8073 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 23:54:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=tmomose@cisco.com; l=8718; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1341816923; x=1343026523; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=GAiuDvNimWwUi1wGtcz1DuNN5TDjMl6jaXK1t3UFgKE=; b=kbKroT+Vs8AAHx2BwRoGDtBWa1P9EcIlylSFmZ4VkY5XZiNysgc8yU4/ +xbPLXwoY0Xk8rkVLk48fAsBowfV4JZJ491EfAOetuWdPk6nWkZeFuhJN KPjD3XOqTmAe97CVZ/tiaJf71pCCA3H3dZNwKLSM+1yHfPjcrSDiMc8J7 M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EACiA+k+tJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABFt2OBB4IgAQEBAwEBAQEPAQUiNAsFCwIBCC0JECcLJQIEDgUJGYdlBguaZJ8Ji1QGgkqCSGADlTaOH4Fmgl+BVgk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,551,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="99891529" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jul 2012 06:55:22 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q696tMte000569 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Jul 2012 06:55:22 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.5.146]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 01:55:21 -0500 From: "Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose)" To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Thread-Topic: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 Thread-Index: AQHNTZzNMAqtncdh/06lMAg2z1pvu5cg+DMA Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 06:55:21 +0000 Message-ID: <6781AC7A-D3B1-466F-9B3F-4AF876A027A0@cisco.com> References: <4FDFA4A7.3090807@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <4FDFA4A7.3090807@bell-labs.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.141.32.241] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19028.004 x-tm-as-result: No--68.846700-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "p2prg@irtf.org" , "Hilt, Volker \(Volker\)" Subject: Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 06:54:59 -0000 Vijay,=20 Thank you for the review. And I apologize too late reply. Based on your comment, we submitted updated edition on last Friday. Let me explain what we've updated. On 2012/06/19, at 6:59, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > Volker, Stefano: In response to your email on the list for reviewing > draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 [1], I am submitting the following > review of the draft. >=20 > In summary, I think that the draft has the potential to document, for > archival purposes, the early work on ALTO-like systems and trace the > evolution of ALTO. But it needs a lot of editorial and grammatical > work. Ideas and explorations in the draft need to be described more > clearly and the results explained in more detail. >=20 > Below is an in-depth summary of the changes that will be required on the > draft. >=20 > MAJOR: >=20 > - S1: "Several proposals have been made to build an overlay network > that takes account of the information about the lower layer network." >=20 > May be a good idea to list some references, or a survey of this > work. Added some references. See the latest draft for the detail. >=20 > - S2.1, second paragraph: I am not sure I understand the impact of > this paragraph. I *think* what you are trying to say is something > like the following: >=20 > Each P2P file sharing application has a unique protocol and none of > them have a large market share therfore making it hard to effectively > control. Changed as your proposal. > - S2.2, first paragraph: perhaps you meant "delay-sensitive" instead > of "traffic-sensitive"? Changed as your proposal. > - S2.2, second paragraph: "From the viewpoint of network providers, the > traffic that content servers generate has shifted to the edge > network..." --- Is this still true? I was under the impression that > the CSP's were moving ever so deeper into the network to position the > content servers closer to the users, no? You pointed out for the case of CSP peers to the core networks. This paragr= aph tries to say what happens server cost reduction with using P2P. We adde= d words after the sentence as follows: "From the viewpoint of network providers, the traffic that content servers = generate has shifted to the edge network and the amount of traffic has not = necessarily been reduced with using P2P technology for reducing server cost= ." > - S2.2, third paragraph: Not sure where you are headed with this text. > Server improvement results in increased traffic, and so does using P2P > applications. So, network bandwidth is not the problem that we are > trying to solve here ... It might mislead you with the document. we've updated it as follows: In some cases, the total amount of traffic on the Internet used to be limit= ed by the capacity of servers. For those cases, P2P technology can improve= the scalability of servers, however it may exhaust network resources. More= over, using P2P applications increases the volume of traffic per user remar= kably. > - S3.1: I believe what you are calling a "Dummy node" is actually a > "Control node"; i.e., a node under your control so you can observe > in detail what is transpiring on the P2P network and maybe even > influence what happens on the network. >=20 > By contrast, a real "dummy node" would be one that is passive and > does not participate in the P2P network. Our dummy node is also passive. But the description about dummy node might = be insufficient. we added it at the tail of section 2.3. > Your description seems to lead credence to the belief that your > dummy nodes essentially infiltrated the P2P network and somehow > captured traffic on the network; but you do not describe how did they > do this? By joining the P2P network and acting as peers? Or by > DPI? It seems that you joined the P2P network as a sybil peer, but > what confuses me is that you go on to say that "With this > configuration, all packets can be captured without any impacts to the > network ..." Clearly, a sybil peer will get all packets that traverse > through it, but it will NOT get all packets generated in the P2P > swarm. Dummy nodes are used just for measurement with using sampling not DPI. That= should be already described in the document. > - S4, second paragraph: You write --- "When a peer joins the network, > it registers its location information (IP address) and supplementary > information (line speed, etc.) with the hint server." Here, I think > you imply that a "peer" is one of your dummy servers, hence it is > happy to provide supplementary information like line speed, etc. > Since you did not modify the real peers, they will not provide the > same supplementary information to the hint server that your dummy peer > will. Please clarify. Dummy nodes are used only for measurement. They do not control the p2p netw= ork at all. But to make it clear, we updated the document. >=20 > -S4, second paragraph: "The hint server makes a mapping of the new peer > (P2P client) [...and...] generates a routing table in which peers > are listed in the order of priority for selection, and returns the > table to the peer." --- To be sure, this is not a routing table as much > as it is an "ordered list of peers to contact" (your Figure 2 lends > more credence to such a view). This should be clarified since the > term "routing table" has a specific meaning to DHTs. Indeed the term "routing table" is ambiguous. We've changed the description= more simply not to use the term. > - S4, below Figure 2 you write, "The network information used by the > hint server is not information solicited from individual ISPs but the > AS number and district information, which are more or less already > public." Earlier, you made a point that supplementary information such > as line speed is also sent to the hint server. How does the hint > server use such information to rank the peers? >=20 > - S4, 3rd paragraph below Figure 2: "Although the priority node ..." > I think here you mean "target node" instead of "priority node". Changed as your proposal. > - S5: What is the difference between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2? > It seems that Experiment 2 had a richer swarm, so you are getting > better localization from this swarm. You may want to put some more > information about the number of peers in Experiments 1 and 2, the > duration during which these results were generated, etc. >=20 > - S5.2 seems rather odd since you earlier made a point that traffic > reduction was an important metric (c.f. S2.3, last sentence of the > second paragraph, and last sentence of third paragraph). After priming > the user that traffic reduction is important, S5.2 says that it is > not. So, I am at a loss on how to interpret the results ... We've changed the description to make it clear as "From the viewpoint of ne= twork providers, the traffic that content servers generate has shifted to t= he edge network and the amount of traffic has not necessarily been reduced = with using P2P technology for reducing server cost." >=20 > NITS: >=20 > - S1, second paragraph: s/have been/has been/ > - S2.1: s/application Bittorrent isn't/application, Bittorrent, isn't/ Changed as your proposal. > - S2.1: Any reference for PerfectDark? Deleted for PerfectDark because it isn't so known even in Japan. > - S2.2: Please expand "IX". Changed as 'Internet Exchange' > - S2.2: s/fees[3]./fees [3]./ > This is a global comment to check for similar typos (see for instance, > S3 that has the same problem). They should be fixed for all similar typos. > - S2.3: s/applications ./applications./ fixed. > - S2.3: Not sure that the use of "conjunction" is the right word here... > (c.f., "Besides this activity, the council also looked for new ways to > avoid traffic conjunction by commercial P2P applications with > ISPs,...") > - S3: s/goals of our experiment are/goals of our experiment is/ fixed. > - S4, below Table 1: s/gotten at/received from/ fixed. >=20 > [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2prg/current/msg01719.html >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > - vijay > --=20 > Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent > 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) > Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com > Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ > _______________________________________________ > p2prg mailing list > p2prg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg Thanks, -- Tsuyoshi Momose From vkg@bell-labs.com Wed Jul 11 09:13:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC4921F84F9 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:13:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.742 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z+cl1i5L1MEm for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:13:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED12C21F84F3 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q6BGDenG002581 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:13:40 -0500 (CDT) Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q6BGDekv006783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:13:40 -0500 Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.237.229]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id q6BGDdf6015818; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:13:39 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4FFDA79D.7030200@bell-labs.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:19:41 -0500 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose)" References: <4FDFA4A7.3090807@bell-labs.com> <6781AC7A-D3B1-466F-9B3F-4AF876A027A0@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <6781AC7A-D3B1-466F-9B3F-4AF876A027A0@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9 Cc: "p2prg@irtf.org" , "Hilt, Volker \(Volker\)" Subject: Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:13:16 -0000 On 07/09/2012 01:55 AM, Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose) wrote: > Vijay, > > Thank you for the review. And I apologize too late reply. Based on > your comment, we submitted updated edition on last Friday. Let me > explain what we've updated. Thank you for attending to my comments. I only have one further comment in -07, which is detailed below. >> - S4, second paragraph: You write --- "When a peer joins the >> network, it registers its location information (IP address) and >> supplementary information (line speed, etc.) with the hint server." >> Here, I think you imply that a "peer" is one of your dummy servers, >> hence it is happy to provide supplementary information like line >> speed, etc. Since you did not modify the real peers, they will not >> provide the same supplementary information to the hint server that >> your dummy peer will. Please clarify. > > Dummy nodes are used only for measurement. They do not control the > p2p network at all. But to make it clear, we updated the document. I remain unsure on how a non-dummy peer sends information to a "hint server". My assumption is that a non-dummy peer was not modified, so why would it contact the hint server. which appears to be a piece of your data-gathering machinery and would not normally appear in the swarm? It may be that I am missing something minor here. Apart from the above, I have no further comments on -07. I suspect that edits for language etc. will help the draft, but maybe these could be done by the RFC editor? Thanks for attending to my review. Regards, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ From tmomose@cisco.com Fri Jul 13 03:15:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1FD021F86DD for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:15:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v1DNmRRmo9+V for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E8521F86D9 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 03:15:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=tmomose@cisco.com; l=2599; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1342174572; x=1343384172; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=+MTvu9UADg4xOsxnN6wU9r2tnNewF+TURi736WwwEyo=; b=BpFHxFhY+SzgGPEDrju7UbyZ17ePB8g/MCulhsWsG/TazlAGRpvh5XAb qksfFZUKrPNuhqIsZFXMlGGy8aDhCV51SkP4AbZd85m97dlUA4nhzIuuv SFIBbHnQhvII6p5EXF5AM+M6L4nV7Gb7NbI99qvZaY0MFhS3bYoguDoZH Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EANr0/0+tJXG+/2dsb2JhbABFhWiyNoEHgiABAQEDARIBDgFRBgULAgEIGQMlAwIyJQIEDieHZQabQI0UAZMEgR2PADVgA5U6jiCBZoJf X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,579,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="101572678" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2012 10:16:11 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6DAGAWW014005 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:16:10 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.5.146]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 05:16:10 -0500 From: "Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose)" To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Thread-Topic: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 Thread-Index: AQHNTZzNMAqtncdh/06lMAg2z1pvu5cg+DMAgAPCWICAAr8WAA== Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:16:10 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4FDFA4A7.3090807@bell-labs.com> <6781AC7A-D3B1-466F-9B3F-4AF876A027A0@cisco.com> <4FFDA79D.7030200@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <4FFDA79D.7030200@bell-labs.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.141.32.241] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19036.006 x-tm-as-result: No--28.369400-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-ID: <84EC05E4BD69164C9F44294912B7CD3B@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Hilt, Volker \(Volker\)" , takeshi INOUE , =?iso-2022-jp?B?S0FNRUkgU2F0b3NoaSAvIBskQjU1MGZBbxsoQg==?= , "p2prg@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:15:36 -0000 Vijay,=20 Thanks again. On 2012/07/12, at 1:19, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > I only have one further comment in -07, which is detailed below. >=20 >>> - S4, second paragraph: You write --- "When a peer joins the >>> network, it registers its location information (IP address) and >>> supplementary information (line speed, etc.) with the hint server." >>> Here, I think you imply that a "peer" is one of your dummy servers, >>> hence it is happy to provide supplementary information like line >>> speed, etc. Since you did not modify the real peers, they will not >>> provide the same supplementary information to the hint server that >>> your dummy peer will. Please clarify. >>=20 >> Dummy nodes are used only for measurement. They do not control the >> p2p network at all. But to make it clear, we updated the document. >=20 > I remain unsure on how a non-dummy peer sends information to a "hint > server". My assumption is that a non-dummy peer was not modified, so > why would it contact the hint server. which appears to be a piece of > your data-gathering machinery and would not normally appear in the > swarm? I may not understand your question correctly, but let me summarize again th= e purpose and behavior of dummy nodes. The experiment coordinator put a hint server which behaves like an ALTO ser= ver. Every P2P nodes provided by vendors who join this experiment always use the= hint server. The protocol for the hint server is open to the experiment at= tendee, thus, the vendors can implement the code for the hint server by the= mselves and they can choose best peers to reduce the traffic. But there are= neither methods nor protocols to measure the effect of reduced traffic bec= ause it's hard to make standards for quite different p2p applications. So, to measure the effect, we introduced nodes which dedicate p2p traffic m= easurement. The nodes build another p2p network system but do nothing excep= t measuring traffic. So, they are called 'dummy nodes'. Dummy nodes just mo= nitors the traffic and analyze their peers at their network interface.=20 I hope this summary helps you to understand the situation. > It may be that I am missing something minor here. >=20 > Apart from the above, I have no further comments on -07. >=20 > I suspect that edits for language etc. will help the draft, but maybe > these could be done by the RFC editor? we hope so, but I don't know the further plans. > Thanks for attending to my review. We appreciate your sincere review. Regards, -- Tsuyoshi Momose From vkg@bell-labs.com Fri Jul 13 06:27:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C028421F869F for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:27:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PY0h5hsRuBio for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4AE21F869E for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q6DDRXrr023764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:27:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q6DDRWQ0018697 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:27:33 -0500 Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.237.229]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id q6DDRTWa023528; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:27:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <500023AC.1080008@bell-labs.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:33:32 -0500 From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose)" References: <4FDFA4A7.3090807@bell-labs.com> <6781AC7A-D3B1-466F-9B3F-4AF876A027A0@cisco.com> <4FFDA79D.7030200@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12 Cc: "Hilt, Volker \(Volker\)" , takeshi INOUE , =?ISO-2022-JP?B?S0FNRUkgU2F0b3NoaSAvIA==?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCNTUwZkFvGyhC?= , "p2prg@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:27:02 -0000 On 07/13/2012 05:16 AM, Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose) wrote: vkg> I remain unsure on how a non-dummy peer sends information to a "hint vkg> server". > I may not understand your question correctly, but let me summarize > again the purpose and behavior of dummy nodes. The experiment coordinator > put a hint server which behaves like an ALTO server. > Every P2P nodes provided by vendors who join this experiment always use > the hint server. Aha ... that bit --- "every P2P node provided by vendors who join this experiment always use the hint server." --- is what is missing in the draft. A quick sentence like: "Every P2P node provided by participating vendors in the experiment was configured so it always contacted the hint server." is all that is needed. That's it. Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ From tmomose@cisco.com Fri Jul 13 08:06:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF05521F8673 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:06:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aFh8ZZP9DyAy for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81A821F86A6 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:06:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=tmomose@cisco.com; l=1311; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1342192036; x=1343401636; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=StEqcDchLQs0JwaSzStBkVjAMtGCMSvyLBrgaoVz5bU=; b=k+5h/8rpbMGlQBgWwkt2mSF7tzt2DaesF112zt17axgOf69Mwvhmk9uJ CTdD3eVBH+4ll25adtfONGL1i+l66LBrpXnzRkVNoJhLg8pW2KTxlom+f whD7jP0LKV6bl/VbRVIjSdW7aXjfU4Hz7l/P+w2+KTW6VSG+UyLwrzk6H 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EALk4AFCtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABFhWiyOIEHgiABAQEDARIBDgFXBQsCAQgYAQMlAwIyJQIEDgUih2UGC5sujRQBkxiBHYofhGE1YAOVOo4ggWaCX4Ff X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,579,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="101633914" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2012 15:07:16 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6DF7F3k003226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:07:15 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.5.146]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 10:07:14 -0500 From: "Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose)" To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" Thread-Topic: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 Thread-Index: AQHNTZzNMAqtncdh/06lMAg2z1pvu5cg+DMAgAPCWICAAr8WAIAANycA///GXQk= Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:07:14 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4FDFA4A7.3090807@bell-labs.com> <6781AC7A-D3B1-466F-9B3F-4AF876A027A0@cisco.com> <4FFDA79D.7030200@bell-labs.com> , <500023AC.1080008@bell-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <500023AC.1080008@bell-labs.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: ja-JP X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19036.006 x-tm-as-result: No--35.654900-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "Hilt, Volker \(Volker\)" , takeshi INOUE , =?iso-2022-jp?B?S0FNRUkgU2F0b3NoaSAvIBskQjU1MGZBbxsoQg==?= , "p2prg@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:06:40 -0000 I'll update the I-D as you proposed. Thank you. -- Tsuyoshi Momose On 2012/07/13, at 22:27, "Vijay K. Gurbani" wrote: > On 07/13/2012 05:16 AM, Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose) wrote: > vkg> I remain unsure on how a non-dummy peer sends information to a "hint > vkg> server". >> I may not understand your question correctly, but let me summarize=20 >> again the purpose and behavior of dummy nodes. The experiment coordinato= r=20 >> put a hint server which behaves like an ALTO server. >> Every P2P nodes provided by vendors who join this experiment always use= =20 >> the hint server.=20 >=20 > Aha ... that bit --- "every P2P node provided by vendors who join this > experiment always use the hint server." --- is what is missing > in the draft. >=20 > A quick sentence like: >=20 > "Every P2P node provided by participating vendors in the > experiment was configured so it always contacted the hint server." >=20 > is all that is needed. >=20 > That's it. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > - vijay >=20 > --=20 > Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent > 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) > Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com > Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ >=20 >=20 From volker.hilt@bell-labs.com Fri Jul 13 15:03:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2410911E8117 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:03:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MXgcATUAIldE for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9711C11E810D for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q6DM4MZt030977 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:04:22 +0200 Received: from US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.36) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:04:22 +0200 Received: from [135.112.131.62] (135.5.27.12) by US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 18:04:19 -0400 Message-ID: <50009B61.2080801@bell-labs.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 18:04:17 -0400 From: Volker Hilt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <003801cd5b1f$e79d1e40$b6d75ac0$@ritt.com.cn> <4FF69F58.7050203@bell-labs.com> <86a9zb995c.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net> In-Reply-To: <86a9zb995c.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [135.5.27.12] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84 Subject: Re: [p2prg] P2PRG closure X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:03:47 -0000 Good point. I've added a note to the P2P RG wiki page. Volker On 07.07.2012 06:07, Ivan Shmakov wrote: >>>>>> Volker Hilt writes: > > [鈥 > > > the P2P RG group is about to close and we are not accepting new > > drafts at this point. > > I guess that the imminent closure should be mentioned on the RG > pages: > > http://irtf.org/p2prg > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/PeerToPeerResearchGroup > > BTW, are there any still active newsgroups or mailing lists > dedicated to P2P (apart from p2p-hackers@ and p2p-foundation@, > which I was able to discover recently via Gmane)? > > TIA. > From still.dedes3@gmail.com Sat Jul 14 10:46:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FE721F8627 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:46:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iylSCLzE7BtF for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F7E21F8554 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenl8 with SMTP id l8so5019507yen.13 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:47:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=XNCOtf3HNw6WIhxGo6qJsqUGrzgjKTPOBtUhpBSMjuY=; b=hW7xbcMgFAXog3Y/Ea/ccV0p4MN+4lFg7ah5jlSlG7XXrVVYkJVwWic/UxpWWTxWRK wELWtR/5c1Sah2WzamBD6TpCNYqHXiSUS2azetlmP1q6xN0XKjReEp7Tfhdlbs1vRY5m kvBDlrxwbtt22hPIzBS7SO4+71BRdbxGPcVt26zjSQ+K0KV7zmcnygBawtCRFeWK/TTU QzicbvM+bxH8Hd5cKtvUbtVqhf+rayMxBMT5yX9eG5cm3SUuH+pl9zLVHMjMMhrh2kWm 3IJP4UmeCJ1WMt20j6gOBnQl3E7w+BEeTVOvmho4dcv+44L7F0kAO9/hr7eMLlqEuWqL YADw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.181.225 with SMTP id dz1mr1916626igc.2.1342288050162; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.206.78 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:17:30 +0530 Message-ID: From: sanghamitra de To: p2prg@irtf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93409816a8cf704c4cdcab9 Subject: [p2prg] draft list of initial topics for different challenge areas in P2P research X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:04:22 -0000 --14dae93409816a8cf704c4cdcab9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Greetings, In the work proposals, I found a proposed *draft* list of initial topics the P2PRG should address in the area of new methods for optimizing P2P application overlays, performing routing and peer selection decisions, managing traffic and discovering resources. The initial topics listed were: - A deliverable on taxonomizing the uses of P2P applications: file sharing applications (BitTorrent?, eMule, eDonkey, etc.), interactive communications-oriented applications (p2psip, Skype), media relaying systems (Joost), patch distribution systems, social networks, replacing critical infrastructure (CoDNS), global persistent storage (CFS, OceanStore?). - An empirical study of peer distributions in BitTorrent? swarms. - A survey of peer selection optimization solutions currently proposed for P2P applications. - Impact of peer selection strategies on cross-ISP fairness. - Peer-selection for P2P streaming. . Are there similar draft lists for other challenge areas in P2P research like: - storage, reliability, and information retrieval in P2P systems - security, privacy, anonymity and trust in P2P network. - P2P systems deployed to measure, monitor and characterize P2P applications - requirements of new applications (e.g., real-time P2P applications or P2P applications for wireless networks) on the P2P technologies used Thanks S. De --14dae93409816a8cf704c4cdcab9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings,
In the work proposals, I=A0found=A0a proposed draft list of initial topics the P2PRG should address=A0in the area of ne= w methods for optimizing P2P application overlays, performing routing and p= eer selection decisions, managing traffic and discovering resources. The in= itial topics listed were:=A0
  • A deliverable on taxonomizing the uses of P2P applications: file sharin= g applications (BitTorrent?, eMule, eDonkey, etc.), interactive comm= unications-oriented applications (p2psip, Skype), media relaying systems (J= oost), patch distribution systems, social networks, replacing critical infr= astructure (CoDNS), global persistent storage (CFS, OceanStore?).
  • An empirical study of peer distributions in BitTorrent? swarms. =
  • A survey of peer selection optimization solutions currently proposed fo= r P2P applications.
  • Impact of peer selection strategies on cross-ISP fairness.
  • Peer-selection for P2P streaming.
=A0.
Are there similar draft lists for other challenge areas=A0in P2P resea= rch like:
  • storage, reliability, and information retrieval in P2P systems
  • security, privacy, anonymity and trust in P2P network.
  • P2P systems deployed to measure, monitor and characterize P2P applicati= ons
  • requirements of new applications (e.g., real-time P2P applications or P= 2P applications for wireless networks) on the P2P technologies used
    • Thanks
    S. De
    --14dae93409816a8cf704c4cdcab9-- From cool_mc_3@yahoo.com Sun Jul 15 07:06:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A43E21F8639 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 07:06:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.578 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_SUBJECT=1.762] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zTF9mgE+dNie for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 07:06:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm5-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (nm5-vm0.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.213.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B51B021F8637 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 07:06:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.212.153] by nm5.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jul 2012 14:07:18 -0000 Received: from [98.139.215.252] by tm10.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jul 2012 14:07:17 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1065.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jul 2012 14:07:17 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 982155.43894.bm@omp1065.mail.bf1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 98425 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Jul 2012 14:07:17 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1342361237; bh=cWQz2OrLvVzsehxmQ/zdmCSXkPwNq/9WlExAWHsenzM=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=065H2LOllKnC0i/eFW3Y23rpYurU7zKBOSwrNm1mqjuMzpJX6qoNiawjn6WQU2MJyZJFGp0n7XWtw88XqFS5dpDOmkQ5+h+Ztc0MCnjwbH0Wj+i8HIvmw+1TOPFT4+6wQAZcRMpSpOcCeBoN+et+DEFHf95uDxVq28aYqrRpbMc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=1tb+zDZdcfzorsTseAjVcAhbb+6Jzj9kV65ydAW2TjSByroAUt46Xwozhy96TjpEJow3CJFl1ds2iJFNOUlZoBHV4FI0Z3h5BXFXHXW6vmqGSSNbNH2wcc1malrFYT+h9cR2fGQVbFzeOML+rAlsNJqQDNhcVkKp6hkWpzzcc54=; X-YMail-OSG: eB4cagMVM1m.rMpUoyQjJYYXtod350EEfWeKY_2zW1Qongh IhTJoV7iQxN_1h_4fITJ0Vn_sgA8s7kxOMGf1snIOOEEXpw0aF1QTA4NOSiq nweSDgfZ5oPD3TH5M7vhjIXarYsatxhwzvRahbQXoH7bemcZNxRk15Z1fMct eA0obftSs_hG3vRfAyydB.dppfSyVh4WvpNUD.xtbILqMj5rLCgGCW15Aeuk N3sxKVmH7y0DMt2ZEnxgXnU7_ayqAIhEU_Uat25yUpTu_0pqCF73nFX4TskB HjAcr4k9lVXc.RSgI8ESMvMg9Ci2PI.LFBHWptAXbXbgZwlUp1OGBsuCpO5S tmYdCnqQK1O__PDsT7r6ngTBpKdiS0M57Goc0J96XeZ2Omkojv.1bF9_4WSE KxvdAeO8ka.pukCn7J0ebY6ihFPaPimf.D37jADnwzifrFDOyF_2.SnelvLJ e_tUGH3DQ4.KGaGC3fwnkJTRYmex569X3peLkn9U- Received: from [218.111.20.2] by web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 07:07:17 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.120.356233 Message-ID: <1342361237.93893.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 07:07:17 -0700 (PDT) From: b7uR To: "p2prg@irtf.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-127571234-539904776-1342361237=:93893" Subject: [p2prg] (no subject) X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: b7uR <#1@company.co.uk> List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:06:37 -0000 ---127571234-539904776-1342361237=:93893 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Disadvantages of a peer to peer network: =0A=09* the system is not centrali= sed, making administration difficult =0A=09* lack of security =0A=09* no co= mputer in the network is reliable =0ATherefore, peer-to-peer networks are o= nly useful for a small number of =0Acomputers (generally about 10), and onl= y suitable for applications that =0Ado not require a high level of security= (it is not advisable in a =0Abusiness network containing sensitive data).= =0A=0Ahow to overcome this disadvantage and how about the security?because = when the user using p2p network, the security level is very low compare to = ethernet network. During the file is transferring (p2p network), any hacker= s can hack the user and crash or do something wrong to the file and especia= lly virus. Can this problem be solve? Thank you.=0A ---127571234-539904776-1342361237=:93893 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    =0ADisadvantages= of a peer to peer network:=0A
    =0A
    • the system is no= t centralised, making administration difficult=0A
    • lack of security= =0A
    • no computer in the network is reliable=0A
    =0AThe= refore, peer-to-peer networks are only useful for a small number of =0Acomp= uters (generally about 10), and only suitable for applications that =0Ado n= ot require a high level of security (it is not advisable in a =0Abusiness n= etwork containing sensitive data).

    how to overcome this disadv= antage and how about the security?because when the user using p2p network, = the security level is very low compare to ethernet network. During the file= is transferring (p2p network), any hackers can hack the user and crash or = do something wrong to the file and especially virus. Can this problem be so= lve? Thank you.
    ---127571234-539904776-1342361237=:93893-- From pedromj@um.es Sun Jul 15 08:03:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C04E21F8476 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:03:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.518 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pxNNri+-VJyS for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xenon11.um.es (xenon11.um.es [155.54.212.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6637421F8475 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:03:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xenon11.um.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC5153654 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:03:50 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by antispam in UMU at xenon11.um.es Received: from xenon11.um.es ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xenon11.um.es [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id F3Auvu6+l4oN for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:03:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (84.121.20.170.dyn.user.ono.com [84.121.20.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pedromj) by xenon11.um.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9611153629 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:03:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5002DBE0.70209@um.es> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:04:00 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?UGVkcm8gTWFydMOtbmV6IEp1bGnDoQ==?= Organization: Universidad de Murcia User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120616 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "p2prg@irtf.org" References: <1342361237.93893.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1342361237.93893.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [p2prg] (no subject) X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 15:03:11 -0000 15/07/12 16:07, b7uR: > Disadvantages of a peer to peer network: > * the system is not centralised, making administration difficult > * lack of security > * no computer in the network is reliable > Therefore, peer-to-peer networks are only useful for a small number of > computers (generally about 10), and only suitable for applications that > do not require a high level of security (it is not advisable in a > business network containing sensitive data). > > how to overcome this disadvantage and how about the security?because when > the user using p2p network, the security level is very low compare to > ethernet network. During the file is transferring (p2p network), any > hackers can hack the user and crash or do something wrong to the file and > especially virus. Can this problem be solve? Thank you. > You are only true in the complexity of administration. P2P networks are not managed/administered in a classical way. They use to be autonomic. Therefore, the P2P networks keep their working state and achieve their objective without human intervention. About security, reliability, and trust, your claims are totally wrong. You can build a security scheme for P2P networks and also a reliable network by carefully selecting the nodes you use to build the overlay network from the available nodes in the P2P network. That said, you can control which nodes form part of the overlay network, so they will not destroy your communication (see Kademlia). Also, you can use any hashing and signing mechanism to ensure that the information you receive is not modified on its way, the same as the underlying networks. Finally, I re commend you to show evidences or reference to a high reputation source (paper) when you affirm something so strong. Regards, Pedro -- Pedro Martinez-Julia Department of Communication and Information Engineering Faculty of Computer Science University of Murcia Email: pedromj@um.es --------------------------------------------------------- *** Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem *** From oneingray@gmail.com Sun Jul 15 09:29:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4227321F848A for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:29:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3w3R5hlwGa03 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gray.siamics.net (unknown [IPv6:2002:bc78:e7e5::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1500D21F846F for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:29:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivan by gray.siamics.net with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SqRhp-0008GQ-Jy; Sun, 15 Jul 2012 23:30:01 +0700 From: Ivan Shmakov To: p2prg@irtf.org In-Reply-To: <5002DBE0.70209@um.es> References: <1342361237.93893.YahooMailNeo@web142503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5002DBE0.70209@um.es> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Sender: ivan@gray.siamics.net Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 23:30:01 +0700 Message-ID: <86zk71vvg6.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [p2prg] P2P security X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:29:29 -0000 >>>>> Pedro Mart=C3=ADnez Juli=C3=A1 writes: >>>>> 15/07/12 16:07, b7uR: [=E2=80=A6] >> * lack of security >> * no computer in the network is reliable >> Therefore, peer-to-peer networks are only useful for a small number >> of computers (generally about 10), and only suitable for >> applications that do not require a high level of security (it is not >> advisable in a business network containing sensitive data). For a counter-example, Bitcoin is an =E2=80=9Calternative currency=E2=80= =9D, which is backed by a P2P network, and is considered secure against forgery (IIRC, [1].) By its very design, it's not secure against eavesdropping. [1] http://www.slideshare.net/dakami/bitcoin-8776098 [=E2=80=A6] > About security, reliability, and trust, your claims are totally > wrong. You can build a security scheme for P2P networks and also a > reliable network by carefully selecting the nodes you use to build > the overlay network from the available nodes in the P2P network. > That said, you can control which nodes form part of the overlay > network, so they will not destroy your communication (see Kademlia). > Also, you can use any hashing and signing mechanism to ensure that > the information you receive is not modified on its way, the same as > the underlying networks. The data being distributed via a P2P network may be encrypted just as well (making eavesdropping ineffective), which is the basis of operation of the GNUnet, Freenet, and Tor P2P networks (AIUI.) Also, the Metalink [2] format, which allows for a single file to be downloaded from multiple sources at the same time, including P2P filesharing networks, is based on XML, and thus can be used along with XMLdsig [3] digital signatures to thwart forgery. The magnet: links may, and the .torrent files have to, contain cryptohashes, so, if received from a trusted source (like, for instance, a trusted HTTPS server), provide for a forgery-proof way to obtain data from a P2P network. [=E2=80=A6] [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5854 [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/ --=20 FSF associate member #7257 http://sf-day.org/ From sprevidi@cisco.com Mon Jul 16 03:45:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 842E621F8773 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:45:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8BvOiF1eqWMj for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A556421F8767 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:45:19 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from stew-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6GAgffY026702 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:42:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dhcp-rom2-bb-gw-vla250-10-147-74-43.cisco.com (dhcp-rom2-bb-gw-vla250-10-147-74-43.cisco.com [10.147.74.43]) by stew-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6GAgYGc014805; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:42:34 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp From: stefano previdi In-Reply-To: <50007966.9060603@alcatel-lucent.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:42:42 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <287BB0A4-D5C1-4522-BE4B-ED71CFB25334@cisco.com> References: <4FDFA4A7.3090807@bell-labs.com> <6781AC7A-D3B1-466F-9B3F-4AF876A027A0@cisco.com> <4FFDA79D.7030200@bell-labs.com> , <500023AC.1080008@bell-labs.com> <50007966.9060603@alcatel-lucent.com> To: Volker Hilt X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: takeshi INOUE , =?utf-8?Q?KAMEI_Satoshi_/_=E4=BA=80=E4=BA=95=E8=81=A1?= , "p2prg@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:45:21 -0000 On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Volker Hilt wrote: > Tsuyoshi Momose, >=20 > great, thanks! Please note that the deadline for draft submissions is > 2012-07-16 (Monday) cut-off by UTC 24:00 note that IRTF needs not to follow ietf deadline and we may be more = flexible. s. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Volker >=20 >=20 > On 13.07.2012 11:07, Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose) wrote: >> I'll update the I-D as you proposed. >>=20 >> Thank you. >>=20 >> -- >> Tsuyoshi Momose >>=20 >> On 2012/07/13, at 22:27, "Vijay K. Gurbani" = wrote: >>=20 >>> On 07/13/2012 05:16 AM, Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose) wrote: >>> vkg> I remain unsure on how a non-dummy peer sends information to a = "hint >>> vkg> server". >>>> I may not understand your question correctly, but let me summarize >>>> again the purpose and behavior of dummy nodes. The experiment = coordinator >>>> put a hint server which behaves like an ALTO server. >>>> Every P2P nodes provided by vendors who join this experiment always = use >>>> the hint server. >>>=20 >>> Aha ... that bit --- "every P2P node provided by vendors who join = this >>> experiment always use the hint server." --- is what is missing >>> in the draft. >>>=20 >>> A quick sentence like: >>>=20 >>> "Every P2P node provided by participating vendors in the >>> experiment was configured so it always contacted the hint server." >>>=20 >>> is all that is needed. >>>=20 >>> That's it. >>>=20 >>> Thanks, >>>=20 >>> - vijay >>>=20 >>> --=20 >>> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent >>> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) >>> Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / = vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com >>> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ >>>=20 >>>=20 >=20 From lars@netapp.com Mon Jul 16 04:01:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5935121F8797 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:01:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.443 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.156, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zQRrRBCKWQvB for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220B721F8795 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:01:32 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,593,1336374000"; d="p7s'?scan'208";a="666067329" Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2012 04:02:16 -0700 Received: from vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com (vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.239]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q6GB2FoW018652; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:02:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.13]) by vmwexceht01-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.239]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:02:07 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: stefano previdi Thread-Topic: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 Thread-Index: AQHNYz+6om1XmOOS1EaMz6L5/MTwWpcsM7eA Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:02:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4FDFA4A7.3090807@bell-labs.com> <6781AC7A-D3B1-466F-9B3F-4AF876A027A0@cisco.com> <4FFDA79D.7030200@bell-labs.com> , <500023AC.1080008@bell-labs.com> <50007966.9060603@alcatel-lucent.com> <287BB0A4-D5C1-4522-BE4B-ED71CFB25334@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <287BB0A4-D5C1-4522-BE4B-ED71CFB25334@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_654A06FF-ECAF-49A0-8BC0-C8CE029A3E42"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Volker Hilt , "p2prg@irtf.org" , takeshi INOUE , =?iso-2022-jp?B?S0FNRUkgU2F0b3NoaSAvIBskQjU1MGZBbxsoQg==?= Subject: Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:01:34 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_654A06FF-ECAF-49A0-8BC0-C8CE029A3E42 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The submission deadline is for all IDs. (The RFC streams are different, = but the IDs are not.) Lars On Jul 16, 2012, at 12:42, stefano previdi wrote: >=20 > On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Volker Hilt wrote: >=20 >> Tsuyoshi Momose, >>=20 >> great, thanks! Please note that the deadline for draft submissions is >> 2012-07-16 (Monday) cut-off by UTC 24:00 >=20 >=20 > note that IRTF needs not to follow ietf deadline and we may be more = flexible. >=20 > s. >=20 >=20 >>=20 >> Thanks, >>=20 >> Volker >>=20 >>=20 >> On 13.07.2012 11:07, Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose) wrote: >>> I'll update the I-D as you proposed. >>>=20 >>> Thank you. >>>=20 >>> -- >>> Tsuyoshi Momose >>>=20 >>> On 2012/07/13, at 22:27, "Vijay K. Gurbani" = wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On 07/13/2012 05:16 AM, Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose) wrote: >>>> vkg> I remain unsure on how a non-dummy peer sends information to = a "hint >>>> vkg> server". >>>>> I may not understand your question correctly, but let me summarize >>>>> again the purpose and behavior of dummy nodes. The experiment = coordinator >>>>> put a hint server which behaves like an ALTO server. >>>>> Every P2P nodes provided by vendors who join this experiment = always use >>>>> the hint server. >>>>=20 >>>> Aha ... that bit --- "every P2P node provided by vendors who join = this >>>> experiment always use the hint server." --- is what is missing >>>> in the draft. >>>>=20 >>>> A quick sentence like: >>>>=20 >>>> "Every P2P node provided by participating vendors in the >>>> experiment was configured so it always contacted the hint server." >>>>=20 >>>> is all that is needed. >>>>=20 >>>> That's it. >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks, >>>>=20 >>>> - vijay >>>>=20 >>>> --=20 >>>> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent >>>> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) >>>> Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / = vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com >>>> Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > p2prg mailing list > p2prg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg --Apple-Mail=_654A06FF-ECAF-49A0-8BC0-C8CE029A3E42 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMQDCCBUow ggQyoAMCAQICEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMTEyMTAwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEyMDkyMzU5NTlaMIIBDTEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2 aWNlMRQwEgYDVQQDFAtMYXJzIEVnZ2VydDEeMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYPbGFyc0BuZXRhcHAuY29t MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAokrhJTcXt6J/VEpZOicLoguBlYTjXP9v Ze4HuuhXnURUS8YouAfgaqA0zYbt5yd6fh4PBMdAaEWr5yJyHuFykXlrCumjUWSpLuqTS2A+pt4q cZaAQk9iLDN/UVd3SpkUuvWbxXlqzG7/BSqa3VNObBzCmyh+V7aXxri+30CT//DSsNRC4VFy6sn6 dMgSaFenXLwe/FBwY0qTMfICT1PrrX6Sw1S8OfH9rykLlZXbmfkFExxQngp1DJH9xMHeODHGbCv/ ty5gdxMOrLe+vENxFEcy1YQWBZd1kNL4UObugF8A/jE/s+Oa3H1VFH8ghqZTdqGDysVxmtKHuNFx 6jIBSQIDAQABo4HSMIHPMAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwRAYDVR0gBD0wOzA5BgtghkgBhvhFAQcXATAqMCgG CCsGAQUFBwIBFhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIFoDAdBgNV HSUEFjAUBggrBgEFBQcDBAYIKwYBBQUHAwIwUAYDVR0fBEkwRzBFoEOgQYY/aHR0cDovL2luZGMx ZGlnaXRhbGlkLWczLWNybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vSW5kQzFEaWdpdGFsSUQtRzMuY3JsMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQBA7q6tR92qpd7xo7VBsrOfGCWzoxIVfTc7t0RhB/Oz/+c3lnhYnNScIuKN JmyZvznmVxqB9BJ72+NkvmdB/hnILSBTRawL2tyLo9PkBtN0nRt4gS6wjpWnD8G83hlJLE7r25jk 7HkRev61dTIXsANFpJKF02C4XSoDfEzNV6MpuEvHvcgHCqMrlwWwfKc7+NoDnE8PBuRzwSXvlD5L mswCY2iiOsd7ImNO4OzTCxETvKTDu92+FTIbRJJpYjVNv1UF7e3w9Kq65BkZJErUH19beUeQl0Wh 2BJQE6/15rQyCnP0iJ/Nmx2/kI6M0PWunEsI6FMs0MbosreaWGHlQmomMIIG7jCCBdagAwIBAgIQ cRVmBUrkkSFN6bxE+azT3DANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCByjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoT DlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTowOAYDVQQL EzEoYykgMTk5OSBWZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLiAtIEZvciBhdXRob3JpemVkIHVzZSBvbmx5MUUwQwYD VQQDEzxWZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIFB1YmxpYyBQcmltYXJ5IENlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gQXV0aG9y aXR5IC0gRzMwHhcNMDkwNTAxMDAwMDAwWhcNMTkwNDMwMjM1OTU5WjCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMx FzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3Jr MTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAo YykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBD bGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOC AQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA7cRH3yooHXwGa7vXITLJbBOP6bGNQU4099oL42r6ZYggCxET6ZvgSU6Lb9UB 0F8NR5GKWkx0Pj/GkQm7TDSejW6hglFi92l2WJYHr54UGAdPWr2f0jGyVBlzRmoZQhHsEnMhjfXc MM3l2VYKMcU2bSkUl70t2olHGYjYSwQ967Y8Zx50ABMN0Ibak2f4MwOuGjxraXj2wCyO4YM/d/mZ //6fUlrCtIcK2GypR8FUKWVDPkrAlh/Brfd3r2yxBF6+wbaULZeQLSfSux7pg2qE9sSyriMGZSal J1grByK0b6ZiSBp38tVQJ5op05b7KPW6JHZi44xZ6/tu1ULEvkHH9QIDAQABo4ICuTCCArUwNAYI KwYBBQUHAQEEKDAmMCQGCCsGAQUFBzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20wEgYDVR0T AQH/BAgwBgEB/wIBADBwBgNVHSAEaTBnMGUGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMFYwKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0 dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9jcHMwKgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwHhocaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVy aXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYTA0BgNVHR8ELTArMCmgJ6AlhiNodHRwOi8vY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9w Y2ExLWczLmNybDAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwbgYIKwYBBQUHAQwEYjBgoV6gXDBaMFgwVhYJaW1h Z2UvZ2lmMCEwHzAHBgUrDgMCGgQUS2u5KJYGDLvQUjibKaxLB4shBRgwJhYkaHR0cDovL2xvZ28u dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3ZzbG9nbzEuZ2lmMC4GA1UdEQQnMCWkIzAhMR8wHQYDVQQDExZQcml2YXRl TGFiZWw0LTIwNDgtMTE4MB0GA1UdDgQWBBR5R2EIQf04BKJL57XM9UP2SSsR+DCB8QYDVR0jBIHp MIHmoYHQpIHNMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEg UHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHM4IRAItbdVaEVIULAM+v OEjOsaQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBADlNz0GZgbWpBbVSOOk5hIls5DSoWufYbAlMJBq6WaSH O3Mh8ZOBz79oY1pn/jWFK6HDXaNKwjoZ3TDWzE3v8dKBl8pUWkO/N4t6jhmND0OojPKvYLMVirOV nDzgnrMnmKQ1chfl/Cpdh9OKDcLRRSr4wPSsKpM61a4ScAjr+zvid+zoK2Q1ds262uDRyxTWcVib vtU+fbbZ6CTFJGZMXZEfdrMXPn8NxiGJL7M3uKH/XLJtSd5lUkL7DojS7Uodv0vj+Mxy+kgOZY5J yNb4mZg7t5Q+MXEGh/psWVMu198r7V9jAKwV7QO4VRaMxmgD5yKocwuxvKDaUljdCg5/wYIxggSL MIIEhwIBATCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYD VQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1c2UgYXQgaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlciBD QSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggJtMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTEyMDcxNjExMDIwNlowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFMYr lCT2XUdOSP2zPEGX7wB3x/tjMIIBAwYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMYH1MIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEX MBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsx OzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChj KTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENs YXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEFcfSRTG0jNknqb9LV9GuFkwggEF BgsqhkiG9w0BCRACCzGB9aCB8jCB3TELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJ bmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBUcnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMTswOQYDVQQLEzJUZXJtcyBvZiB1 c2UgYXQgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JwYSAoYykwOTEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29u YSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTcwNQYDVQQDEy5WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFzcyAxIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vi c2NyaWJlciBDQSAtIEczAhBXH0kUxtIzZJ6m/S1fRrhZMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBACgzL/MW 6ovZPmbpwLBEQx91TwuI7YHBuO9vpjheDx18Cgefdmcfuevzqygyb/yWiiCv3D6pfatAn0w66a90 TNDk7Mwk7D775ywT1n/wvydZVbidwWMsJBp76TIZB/fCOJROcvAkZBmXRrenF2e292TleruIJkYZ tjmUKtg0fjI7xVpNeFn/b1dfYEFr+RGvtpinygqnXzX0G3Hz6RimBUG58iIA7eA8wlUuVbvHRbBS 55JdsSL1UWthQ13h8Hd1qIb0CMoKMUK2luAGDR4IV9THV6KkXwpjXUG3wXesuV5zqgg7wvN+HDOf e+1UJ0AtfjeBZxHcswo6TJgZEwE2agMAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail=_654A06FF-ECAF-49A0-8BC0-C8CE029A3E42-- From tmomose@cisco.com Mon Jul 16 05:31:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2prg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3AD21F87FC for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 05:31:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.854 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.745, BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g5T8RtMokkAo for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 05:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D162021F87FE for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 05:31:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=tmomose@cisco.com; l=13600; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1342441914; x=1343651514; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Hh7Ac7RWThos1J7ag6qpO/bVaQoDIt59zban3/r0wtU=; b=FqdX9WVUcEaoJmUtLpiUUS6ZF3WGrpH9N9a9R2XLbPKHGa4FnqjN6Guo RPbdwkjk7CeAl+ATiT7vIPECLKVmxcF3PKmHhbRszDZVpLVbAyMOmJF+H 8pWjBjluoRHx0i6PEb4J1rVEZ1w5GzVt6UZ/Ymr1Yeu6h+55XlALeAWXG 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlwGADYIBFCtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABFhWmiYYdkAYh9gQeCIQEBBBIBDgFXEAIBCBIVGAIDAjIUAw4CBA4FCRmHawucCY0UAZIpi0CFMjVgA5U7gRKNDoFmgl+BXw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,594,1336348800"; d="scan'208,217";a="102231052" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2012 12:31:54 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6GCVsED012086 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:31:54 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.5.146]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:31:53 -0500 From: "Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose)" To: Volker Hilt Thread-Topic: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 Thread-Index: AQHNTZzNMAqtncdh/06lMAg2z1pvu5cg+DMAgAPCWICAAr8WAIAANycA///GXQmAAJ/VAIAD68KI Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:31:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4FDFA4A7.3090807@bell-labs.com> <6781AC7A-D3B1-466F-9B3F-4AF876A027A0@cisco.com> <4FFDA79D.7030200@bell-labs.com> , <500023AC.1080008@bell-labs.com> , <50007966.9060603@alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <50007966.9060603@alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: ja-JP X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19042.006 x-tm-as-result: No--45.785400-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C398F08D1E874AFF80EA67B9EBDF290Aciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: takeshi INOUE , =?iso-2022-jp?B?S0FNRUkgU2F0b3NoaSAvIBskQjU1MGZBbxsoQg==?= , "p2prg@irtf.org" Subject: Re: [p2prg] RGLC review for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-06 X-BeenThere: p2prg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:31:12 -0000 --_000_C398F08D1E874AFF80EA67B9EBDF290Aciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've already submitted the final edition by 7/16 as attached. Regards, -- Tsuyoshi Momose On 2012/07/14, at 4:39, "Volker Hilt" > wrote: Tsuyoshi Momose, great, thanks! Please note that the deadline for draft submissions is 2012-07-16 (Monday) cut-off by UTC 24:00 Thanks, Volker On 13.07.2012 11:07, Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose) wrote: I'll update the I-D as you proposed. Thank you. -- Tsuyoshi Momose On 2012/07/13, at 22:27, "Vijay K. Gurbani"> wrote: On 07/13/2012 05:16 AM, Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose) wrote: vkg> I remain unsure on how a non-dummy peer sends information to a "hint vkg> server". I may not understand your question correctly, but let me summarize again the purpose and behavior of dummy nodes. The experiment coordinator put a hint server which behaves like an ALTO server. Every P2P nodes provided by vendors who join this experiment always use the hint server. Aha ... that bit --- "every P2P node provided by vendors who join this experiment always use the hint server." --- is what is missing in the draft. A quick sentence like: "Every P2P node provided by participating vendors in the experiment was configured so it always contacted the hint server." is all that is needed. That's it. Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-= lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ Begin forwarded message: =1B$B:9=3DP?M=1B(B: > =1B$BF|;~=1B(B: 2012=1B$BG/=1B(B7=1B$B7n=1B(B15=1B$BF|=1B(B 23:46:58 JST =1B$B08@h=1B(B: > Cc: >, >, > =1B$B7oL>=1B(B: New Version Notification for draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-ja= pan-08.txt A new version of I-D, draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-08.txt has been successfully submitted by Tsuyoshi Momose and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan Revision: 08 Title: ALTO-Like Activities and Experiments in P2P Network Experime= nt Council Creation date: 2012-07-15 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 16 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kamei-p2p-experi= ments-japan-08.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kamei-p2p-experiment= s-japan Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-jap= an-08 Diff: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-kamei-p2p-exper= iments-japan-08 Abstract: This document introduces experiments to clarify how ALTO-like approach was effective to reduce network traffic made by a Council in Japan to harmonize P2P technology with the infrastructure. And this also provides some suggestions that might be useful for ALTO architecture learned through our experiments. The IETF Secretariat --_000_C398F08D1E874AFF80EA67B9EBDF290Aciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    I've already submitted the final edition by 7/16 as attached.

    Regards,

    --
    Tsuyoshi Momose



    On 2012/07/14, at 4:39, "Volker Hilt" <volkerh@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

    Tsuyoshi Momose,

    great, thanks! Please note that the deadline for draft submissions is=
    2012-07-16 (Monday) cut-off by UTC 24:00

    Thanks,

    Volker


    On 13.07.2012 11:07, Tsuyoshi Momose (tmomose) wrote:
    I'll update the I-D as you proposed.=

    Thank you.

    --
    Tsuyoshi Momose

    On 2012/07/13, at 22:27, "Vijay K. Gur= bani"<vkg@bell-labs.com>= ;  wrote:

    On 07/13/2012 05:16 AM, Tsuyoshi Momose (tm= omose) wrote:
    vkg>  I remain unsure on how a non-= dummy peer sends information to a "hint
    vkg>  server".
    I may not understand your question correctl= y, but let me summarize
    again the purpose and behavior of dummy nod= es. The experiment coordinator
    put a hint server which behaves like an ALT= O server.
    Every P2P nodes provided by vendors who joi= n this experiment always use
    the hint server.

    Aha ... that bit --- "every P2P node p= rovided by vendors who join this
    experiment always use the hint server."= ; --- is what is missing
    in the draft.

    A quick sentence like:

     "Every P2P node provided by part= icipating vendors in the
      experiment was configured so it= always contacted the hint server."

    is all that is needed.

    That's it.

    Thanks,

    - vijay

    --
    Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcate= l-Lucent
    1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, I= llinois 60563 (USA)
    Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-l= ucent.com
    Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

    =1B$B:9=3DP?M=1B(B: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
    =1B$BF|;~=1B(B: 2012=1B$BG/=1B(B7=1B$B7n=1B(B15=1B$BF|=1B(B 23:= 46:58 JST
    =1B$B08@h=1B(B: <tmomos= e@cisco.com>
    Cc: <tomohiro.= nishitani@ntt.com>, <skame@nttv= 6.jp>, <inoue@jp.ntt.net&= gt;
    =1B$B7oL>=1B(B: New Version Notification for draft-kamei-p2p= -experiments-japan-08.txt


    A new version of I-D, draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-08.txt=
    has been successfully submitted by Tsuyoshi Momose and posted to the<= /span>
    IETF repository.

    Filename:     draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan
    Revision:     08
    Title:         ALTO-Like Activities and Experimen= ts in P2P Network Experiment Council
    Creation date:     2012-07-15
    WG ID:         Individual Submission
    Number of pages: 16
    URL:           &nbs= p; http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kamei-p2p-e= xperiments-japan-08.txt
    Status:          http= ://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan Htmlized:        http://tools.iet= f.org/html/draft-kamei-p2p-experiments-japan-08
    Diff:           &nb= sp;http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-kamei-p2p-experime= nts-japan-08

    Abstract:
      This document introduces experiments to clarify how ALTO-= like
      approach was effective to reduce network traffic made by = a Council in
      Japan to harmonize P2P technology with the infrastructure= .  And this
      also provides some suggestions that might be useful for A= LTO
      architecture learned through our experiments.




    The IETF Secretariat
     --_000_C398F08D1E874AFF80EA67B9EBDF290Aciscocom_--