From nobody Wed Dec 2 17:51:24 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084DE1B2B4C for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:51:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tUhMdBs-IvMq for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:51:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCB701B2B4A for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 17:51:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CEY12338; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 01:51:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 01:51:16 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.12]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:51:02 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: Alissa Cooper Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17 Thread-Index: AQHQ1umosqhZ/UWGA0i8P+k8SWdo8p4P1gUAgAGVAoCAAygiwIAYAXYAgCzfIQCAOf21AIAEBqUAgAjfnlCAAgdhAIAAAMKAgAEQYNCADFdUAIAFWawAgAQKd4A= Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 01:51:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <37059182-6C51-49E3-83A0-D27F2C15A366@cooperw.in> <5C131A2D-2519-4CD5-AAB0-1E01563C9665@cooperw.in> <52C1D77C-4E21-4C1B-A16E-D20B638B38FF@cooperw.in> <0F1001E5-3C1F-4275-A748-06332B5B5FAF@cooperw.in> In-Reply-To: <0F1001E5-3C1F-4275-A748-06332B5B5FAF@cooperw.in> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F653D9470nkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.565FA017.000B, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.2.12, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 0c03296527b7c6c575a7777d119ab3ce Archived-At: Cc: p2psip , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17 X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 01:51:24 -0000 --_000_E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F653D9470nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Q291bGQgc29tZSBhdXRob3JzIG9mIHRoZSBSRUxPQUQgUkZDIGFuc3dlciB0aGlzIHF1ZXN0aW9u PyBBcyBpdCB3YXMgbWVyZ2VkIGZyb20gdGhlIFJFTE9BRCBkcmFmdC4gQWx0aG91Z2ggd2UgY2Fu IGRpc2N1c3Mgd2l0aG91dCB0aGVtLg0KDQpCZXN0IFJlZ2FyZHMhDQotSGFpYmluDQoNCkZyb206 IEFsaXNzYSBDb29wZXIgW21haWx0bzphbGlzc2FAY29vcGVydy5pbl0NClNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXks IERlY2VtYmVyIDAxLCAyMDE1IDQ6MDYgQU0NClRvOiBTb25naGFpYmluIChBKQ0KQ2M6IHAycHNp cDsgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wMnBzaXAtZGlhZ25vc3RpY3NAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcNClN1YmplY3Q6 IFJlOiBbUDJQU0lQXSBBRCBldmFsdWF0aW9uOiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXAycHNpcC1kaWFnbm9zdGlj cy0xNw0KDQpUaGFua3MuIExhc3QgY2FsbCBoYXMgYmVlbiBpbml0aWF0ZWQuIFN0aWxsIGxvb2tp bmcgZm9yIGFuc3dlcnMgYmVsb3cuDQoNCg0KVGhlIGRlZmluaXRpb25zIG9mIEVXTUFfQllURVNf U0VOVCBhbmQgRVdNQV9CWVRFU19SQ1ZEIHNlZW0gcHJvYmxlbWF0aWMuDQoNCnNlbnQgPSBhbHBo YSB4IHNlbnRfcHJlc2VudCArICgxIC0gYWxwaGEpIHggc2VudA0KcmN2ZCA9IGFscGhhIHggcmN2 ZF9wcmVzZW50ICsgKDEgLSBhbHBoYSkgeCByY3ZkDQoNCkFzIHdyaXR0ZW4gdGhlc2UgZXF1YXRp b25zIGFyZSBub3QgcmlnaHQgYmVjYXVzZSBzZW50L3JjdmQgYXBwZWFyIG9uIGJvdGggc2lkZXMu IEl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGNsZWFyZXIgdG8gdXNlIGxhc3Rfc2VudCBhbmQgbGFzdF9yY3ZkIG9yIHNv bWUgc3VjaCBvbiB0aGUgcmlnaHQtaGFuZCBzaWRlIG9mIHRoZXNlIGVxdWF0aW9ucy4gQnV0IHRo aXMgYmVncyBzb21lIGJpZ2dlciBxdWVzdGlvbnM6DQoNCi0gRG9lcyB0aGlzIHBsYWNlIGEgcmVx dWlyZW1lbnQgb24gYWxsIG5vZGVzIGltcGxlbWVudGluZyB0aGlzIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gdG8g aGF2ZSB0byBjYWxjdWxhdGUgdGhlc2UgdmFsdWVzIGV2ZXJ5IDUgc2Vjb25kcz8NCi0gSG93IGFy ZSB0aGUgdmFsdWVzIGNhbGN1bGF0ZWQgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHRpbWU/DQotIEhvdyB3YXMgdGhlIHZh bHVlIG9mIDUgc2Vjb25kcyBjaG9zZW4/DQoNCkFsaXNzYQ0KDQoNCk9uIE5vdiAyNiwgMjAxNSwg YXQgNjoyNSBQTSwgU29uZ2hhaWJpbiAoQSkgPGhhaWJpbi5zb25nQGh1YXdlaS5jb208bWFpbHRv OmhhaWJpbi5zb25nQGh1YXdlaS5jb20+PiB3cm90ZToNCg0KRGVhciBBbGlzc2EsDQoNCkkgaGF2 ZSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiB3aXRoIGNoYW5nZXMgdG8gdGhlIGRpYWdub3N0aWMg aW5mb3JtYXRpb24gYXV0aG9yaXphdGlvbiBwYXJ0LCBhbmQgbGVhdmUgdGhlICBFV01BX0JZVEVT X1NFTlQgYW5kIEVXTUFfQllURVNfUkNWRCBmb3IgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBkdXJpbmcgSUVURiBsYXN0 IGNhbGwuDQoNCkJlc3QgUmVnYXJkcyENCi1IYWliaW4NCg== --_000_E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F653D9470nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQo8aGVhZD4NCjxtZXRhIGh0dHAtZXF1aXY9IkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZSIg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9IkdlbmVyYXRv ciIgY29udGVudD0iTWljcm9zb2Z0IFdvcmQgMTIgKGZpbHRlcmVkIG1lZGl1bSkiPg0KPHN0eWxl PjwhLS0NCi8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6 SGVsdmV0aWNhOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTEgNiA0IDIgMiAyIDIgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UN Cgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk65a6L5L2TOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMSA2IDAgMyAxIDEgMSAxIDE7fQ0K QGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQg NSAzIDUgNCA2IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglw YW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJ e2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJcQOWui+S9kyI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxIDYgMCAzIDEgMSAxIDEgMTt9 DQovKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2 Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46MGNtOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250 LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OuWui+S9kzt9DQphOmxpbmssIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlw ZXJsaW5rDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpibHVlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVj b3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KYTp2aXNpdGVkLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2Vk DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpwdXJwbGU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0 aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpzcGFuLmFwcGxlLWNvbnZlcnRlZC1zcGFjZQ0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUt bmFtZTphcHBsZS1jb252ZXJ0ZWQtc3BhY2U7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTgNCgl7bXNvLXN0 eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVyc29uYWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNl cmlmIjsNCgljb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEO30NCi5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBl OmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgV29yZFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJ e3NpemU6NjEyLjBwdCA3OTIuMHB0Ow0KCW1hcmdpbjo3Mi4wcHQgOTAuMHB0IDcyLjBwdCA5MC4w cHQ7fQ0KZGl2LldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOldvcmRTZWN0aW9uMTt9DQotLT48L3N0eWxl PjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIg c3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48 eG1sPg0KPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KPG86aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQi IGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQo8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+DQo8L2hlYWQ+ DQo8Ym9keSBsYW5nPSJaSC1DTiIgbGluaz0iYmx1ZSIgdmxpbms9InB1cnBsZSI+DQo8ZGl2IGNs YXNzPSJXb3JkU2VjdGlvbjEiPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4t VVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVv dDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj5Db3VsZCBzb21lIGF1dGhv cnMgb2YgdGhlIFJFTE9BRCBSRkMgYW5zd2VyIHRoaXMgcXVlc3Rpb24/IEFzIGl0IHdhcyBtZXJn ZWQgZnJvbSB0aGUgUkVMT0FEIGRyYWZ0LiBBbHRob3VnaCB3ZSBjYW4gZGlzY3VzcyB3aXRob3V0 IHRoZW0uPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4g bGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0Nh bGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj48bzpwPiZu YnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5bGU9 InRleHQtYWxpZ246anVzdGlmeTt0ZXh0LWp1c3RpZnk6aW50ZXItaWRlb2dyYXBoIj48c3BhbiBs YW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2Fs aWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPkJlc3QgUmVn YXJkcyE8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0i dGV4dC1hbGlnbjpqdXN0aWZ5O3RleHQtanVzdGlmeTppbnRlci1pZGVvZ3JhcGgiPjxzcGFuIGxh bmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxp YnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+LUhhaWJpbjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4g bGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0Nh bGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEIj48bzpwPiZu YnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJib3JkZXI6bm9uZTtib3JkZXItbGVm dDpzb2xpZCBibHVlIDEuNXB0O3BhZGRpbmc6MGNtIDBjbSAwY20gNC4wcHQiPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxk aXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0I1QzRERiAxLjBwdDtwYWRk aW5nOjMuMHB0IDBjbSAwY20gMGNtIj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxiPjxzcGFuIGxh bmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtUYWhv bWEmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+RnJvbTo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuIGxh bmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtUYWhv bWEmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90OyI+IEFsaXNzYSBDb29wZXIgW21haWx0bzph bGlzc2FAY29vcGVydy5pbl0NCjxicj4NCjxiPlNlbnQ6PC9iPiBUdWVzZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJlciAw MSwgMjAxNSA0OjA2IEFNPGJyPg0KPGI+VG86PC9iPiBTb25naGFpYmluIChBKTxicj4NCjxiPkNj OjwvYj4gcDJwc2lwOyBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXAycHNpcC1kaWFnbm9zdGljc0B0b29scy5pZXRmLm9y Zzxicj4NCjxiPlN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBSZTogW1AyUFNJUF0gQUQgZXZhbHVhdGlvbjogZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1wMnBzaXAtZGlhZ25vc3RpY3MtMTc8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjwvZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+Jm5i c3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBs YW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+VGhhbmtzLiBMYXN0IGNhbGwgaGFzIGJlZW4gaW5pdGlhdGVkLiBTdGlsbCBs b29raW5nIGZvciBhbnN3ZXJzIGJlbG93LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0K PGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPiZuYnNw OzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8YmxvY2txdW90ZSBzdHlsZT0ibWFy Z2luLXRvcDo1LjBwdDttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjUuMHB0Ij4NCjxkaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4N CjxibG9ja3F1b3RlIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tdG9wOjUuMHB0O21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206NS4wcHQi Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9ImJvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkIGJsdWUg MS41cHQ7cGFkZGluZzowY20gMGNtIDBjbSA0LjBwdCI+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNz PSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxibG9ja3F1b3RlIHN0eWxlPSJtYXJnaW4tdG9w OjUuMHB0O21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206NS4wcHQiPg0KPGRpdj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNv Tm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+VGhlIGRlZmluaXRpb25zIG9mJm5ic3A7RVdNQV9C WVRFU19TRU5UIGFuZCZuYnNwO0VXTUFfQllURVNfUkNWRCBzZWVtIHByb2JsZW1hdGljLjxicj4N Cjxicj4NCnNlbnQgPSBhbHBoYSB4IHNlbnRfcHJlc2VudCAmIzQzOyAoMSAtIGFscGhhKSB4IHNl bnQ8YnI+DQpyY3ZkID0gYWxwaGEgeCByY3ZkX3ByZXNlbnQgJiM0MzsgKDEgLSBhbHBoYSkgeCBy Y3ZkPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KQXMgd3JpdHRlbiB0aGVzZSBlcXVhdGlvbnMgYXJlIG5vdCByaWdodCBi ZWNhdXNlIHNlbnQvcmN2ZCBhcHBlYXIgb24gYm90aCBzaWRlcy4gSXQgd291bGQgYmUgY2xlYXJl ciB0byB1c2UgbGFzdF9zZW50IGFuZCBsYXN0X3JjdmQgb3Igc29tZSBzdWNoIG9uIHRoZSByaWdo dC1oYW5kIHNpZGUgb2YgdGhlc2UgZXF1YXRpb25zLiBCdXQgdGhpcyBiZWdzIHNvbWUgYmlnZ2Vy IHF1ZXN0aW9uczo8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQotIERvZXMgdGhpcyBwbGFjZSBhIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IG9u IGFsbCBub2RlcyBpbXBsZW1lbnRpbmcgdGhpcyBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHRvIGhhdmUgdG8gY2Fs Y3VsYXRlIHRoZXNlIHZhbHVlcyBldmVyeSA1IHNlY29uZHM/PGJyPg0KLSBIb3cgYXJlIHRoZSB2 YWx1ZXMgY2FsY3VsYXRlZCB0aGUgZmlyc3QgdGltZT88YnI+DQotIEhvdyB3YXMgdGhlIHZhbHVl IG9mIDUgc2Vjb25kcyBjaG9zZW4/PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rp dj4NCjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4N CjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3Jt YWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+QWxpc3Nh PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1h bCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjxkaXY+DQo8YmxvY2txdW90ZSBzdHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luLXRvcDo1LjBw dDttYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjUuMHB0Ij4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3Bh biBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyI+T24gTm92IDI2LCAyMDE1LCBhdCA2OjI1IFBNLCBTb25naGFpYmluIChB KSAmbHQ7PGEgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmhhaWJpbi5zb25nQGh1YXdlaS5jb20iPmhhaWJpbi5zb25n QGh1YXdlaS5jb208L2E+Jmd0OyB3cm90ZTo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFuIGxh bmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxp YnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+RGVhciBBbGlz c2EsPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rp dj4NCjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9 ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtz YW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5nPSJF Ti1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8ZGl2Pg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1z b05vcm1hbCI+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiIHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6MTAuNXB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiZxdW90O0NhbGlicmkmcXVvdDssJnF1b3Q7c2Fucy1zZXJpZiZxdW90Oztjb2xvcjoj MUY0OTdEIj5JIGhhdmUgc3VibWl0dGVkIGEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gd2l0aCBjaGFuZ2VzIHRvIHRo ZSBkaWFnbm9zdGljIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGF1dGhvcml6YXRpb24gcGFydCwgYW5kIGxlYXZlIHRo ZSAmbmJzcDtFV01BX0JZVEVTX1NFTlQgYW5kJm5ic3A7RVdNQV9CWVRFU19SQ1ZEDQogZm9yIGRp c2N1c3Npb24gZHVyaW5nIElFVEYgbGFzdCBjYWxsLjxzcGFuIGNsYXNzPSJhcHBsZS1jb252ZXJ0 ZWQtc3BhY2UiPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPGRpdj4NCjxwIGNsYXNzPSJNc29Ob3JtYWwiPjxzcGFu IGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtD YWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMtc2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+Jm5ic3A7 PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQo8L2Rpdj4N CjxkaXY+DQo8cCBjbGFzcz0iTXNvTm9ybWFsIiBzdHlsZT0idGV4dC1hbGlnbjpqdXN0aWZ5O3Rl eHQtanVzdGlmeTppbnRlci1pZGVvZ3JhcGgiPjxzcGFuIGxhbmc9IkVOLVVTIiBzdHlsZT0iZm9u dC1zaXplOjEwLjVwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseTomcXVvdDtDYWxpYnJpJnF1b3Q7LCZxdW90O3NhbnMt c2VyaWYmcXVvdDs7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCI+QmVzdCBSZWdhcmRzITwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBsYW5n PSJFTi1VUyI+PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9Ik1zb05vcm1hbCIgc3R5 bGU9InRleHQtYWxpZ246anVzdGlmeTt0ZXh0LWp1c3RpZnk6aW50ZXItaWRlb2dyYXBoIj48c3Bh biBsYW5nPSJFTi1VUyIgc3R5bGU9ImZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC41cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6JnF1b3Q7 Q2FsaWJyaSZxdW90OywmcXVvdDtzYW5zLXNlcmlmJnF1b3Q7O2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QiPi1IYWli aW48L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gbGFuZz0iRU4tVVMiPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCjwvZGl2 Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2Jsb2NrcXVvdGU+DQo8L2Rpdj4NCjwvZGl2Pg0KPC9kaXY+DQo8L2JvZHk+ DQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= --_000_E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F653D9470nkgeml501mbschi_-- From nobody Tue Dec 8 08:10:08 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B271B2F76 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:10:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -114.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bVa19gwN-uc4 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:10:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF5121B2DC0 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:10:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2120; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1449591005; x=1450800605; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=v4J3ow0ryvpyhArQlGqrA1CC55WOiW9IWsWIUFKaIdA=; b=V56WKuHnYu6iRBsJfF5xEWIdSL3CvzpntywDKx8XvcwsswO8zZSR3VHi BpQUqI1T+99/i7gbE8a0OC+OMXlxqTy4jHRobWQhma5r1kbNFm8k3+fKx 4R/JJIkM+eXt6jw8M2L3VTZP/qWXeoo7W7cij1T1/P3NqxasF+Vcv+9k1 A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CFAwCJ/2ZW/49dJa1eKAECgw+BQQasJ?= =?us-ascii?q?JEUAQ2BboYOAoE+OBQBAQEBAQEBgQqENAEBAQMBOj8FCwIBCBgeEDIlAgQBDQW?= =?us-ascii?q?IJwjAXgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARiIY4JuhFmDTYEVBZJ3g2oBjTucb?= =?us-ascii?q?AEfAQFCgg4gFoFAcoRogQcBAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,400,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="214619605" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Dec 2015 16:10:04 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tB8GA4f2021560 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 8 Dec 2015 16:10:04 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-004.cisco.com (64.101.220.144) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:10:04 -0500 Received: from xch-rtp-004.cisco.com ([64.101.220.144]) by XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com ([64.101.220.144]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:10:03 -0500 From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" To: Alissa Cooper , "Songhaibin (A)" Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17 - crazy send math .... Thread-Index: AQHRMdLlLXzfUXoo90WwuYc1zixg4A== Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 16:10:03 +0000 Message-ID: <4541D978-85FB-483A-A66C-F8D22D8619F7@cisco.com> References: <37059182-6C51-49E3-83A0-D27F2C15A366@cooperw.in> <5C131A2D-2519-4CD5-AAB0-1E01563C9665@cooperw.in> <52C1D77C-4E21-4C1B-A16E-D20B638B38FF@cooperw.in> In-Reply-To: <52C1D77C-4E21-4C1B-A16E-D20B638B38FF@cooperw.in> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.165] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: p2psip , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17 - crazy send math .... X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:10:07 -0000 > On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:09 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> The definitions of EWMA_BYTES_SENT and EWMA_BYTES_RCVD seem problematic. >>=20 >> sent =3D alpha x sent_present + (1 - alpha) x sent >> rcvd =3D alpha x rcvd_present + (1 - alpha) x rcvd >>=20 >> As written these equations are not right because sent/rcvd appear on bot= h sides. It would be clearer to use last_sent and last_rcvd or some such on= the right-hand side of these equations. But this begs some bigger question= s: >>=20 >> - Does this place a requirement on all nodes implementing this specifica= tion to have to calculate these values every 5 seconds? >> - How are the values calculated the first time? >> - How was the value of 5 seconds chosen? >>=20 >> [Haibin] This is incorporated from the early RELOAD document. Maybe some= author of the RELOAD protocol can give a better explanation. >=20 > This still has not been explained. >=20 I'm sure I know what this was meant to represent when it was written ....=20 sent for time period t should be set to the value of alpha times the amount= sent in this time period plus (1-alpha) times the value of send for the pr= evious time period. The value sent for the very first time period should simply be the amount t= hat was sent in that time period. That is not computable before the end of = the time period. I doubt anyone cares what the values before the end of the= first time period. Note that alpha is a constant that is probably compiled= into the application and not something we expect end users to set.=20 Basically this is a somewhat crappy infinite impulse response (IIR) filter = approximation of finite impulse response (FIR) filter for computing the wei= ghted moving average of the data transmission rate.=20 Dito for rcvd. Hope that helps,=20 Cullen As an irrelevant side note .. In practice, I have found that just reportin= g the raw totals number of bytes sent since the box booted then letting the= management system filter and smooth that values works out better than usin= g this From nobody Sun Dec 13 09:49:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E621B2AB6 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 09:49:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XrXMKH9sUrkC for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 09:49:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03D851B2AB5 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 09:49:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3315A2045D for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:49:01 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=YtDgQcxCCnpxSk+GvZiUgqYeJrQ=; b=yMbzMb gsKWV513P/7CGNgn/sHVDrGEeSwTDIhj+Z/LzqrW59BkT6sJuEOSCNy6mFegpzkr pgeibbVQjdbBeSIvnDX5WiIYUmYxGHCh2TJe54wJXke1kt/NdI6csrvEyoYMwEHG 4OsxrsLwvdtizgWWVsw7yhrv8YynIiW7aQWFM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=YtDgQcxCCnpxSk+ GvZiUgqYeJrQ=; b=T8pAKRsANWHIhb8zbnNt/DNCvLyxR5TodDR+oSrgIqnirzs VFhCvmi8mit3hbqOzU78pgMGmTcniqcDFvxb8/REOZIM9l3lT+ldZfVC6h332hWh SuMNRy28k+jPJlGw171kHQ11lmY+gDcpkeiEuj08+MPHSVyNeGye/MR1et8Q= X-Sasl-enc: 7+XTHeHch6JU4NfzQAcanwg7WWQrNkbAFmFXFf5yOW8Q 1450028940 Received: from sjc-alcoop-8815.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.171]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5C956C016C4; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:49:00 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: <4541D978-85FB-483A-A66C-F8D22D8619F7@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 09:48:58 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2AAB9C16-3E6E-42E7-849B-195F1BAD6737@cooperw.in> References: <37059182-6C51-49E3-83A0-D27F2C15A366@cooperw.in> <5C131A2D-2519-4CD5-AAB0-1E01563C9665@cooperw.in> <52C1D77C-4E21-4C1B-A16E-D20B638B38FF@cooperw.in> <4541D978-85FB-483A-A66C-F8D22D8619F7@cisco.com> To: Cullen Jennings X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: p2psip , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17 - crazy send math .... X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 17:49:03 -0000 > On Dec 8, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) = wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:09 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>> The definitions of EWMA_BYTES_SENT and EWMA_BYTES_RCVD seem = problematic. >>>=20 >>> sent =3D alpha x sent_present + (1 - alpha) x sent >>> rcvd =3D alpha x rcvd_present + (1 - alpha) x rcvd >>>=20 >>> As written these equations are not right because sent/rcvd appear on = both sides. It would be clearer to use last_sent and last_rcvd or some = such on the right-hand side of these equations. But this begs some = bigger questions: >>>=20 >>> - Does this place a requirement on all nodes implementing this = specification to have to calculate these values every 5 seconds? >>> - How are the values calculated the first time? >>> - How was the value of 5 seconds chosen? >>>=20 >>> [Haibin] This is incorporated from the early RELOAD document. Maybe = some author of the RELOAD protocol can give a better explanation. >>=20 >> This still has not been explained. >>=20 >=20 > I'm sure I know what this was meant to represent when it was written = ....=20 >=20 > sent for time period t should be set to the value of alpha times the = amount sent in this time period plus (1-alpha) times the value of send = for the previous time period. >=20 > The value sent for the very first time period should simply be the = amount that was sent in that time period. That is not computable before = the end of the time period. I doubt anyone cares what the values before = the end of the first time period. Note that alpha is a constant that is = probably compiled into the application and not something we expect end = users to set.=20 Thanks Cullen. I think the draft needs some text to explain the above. Haibin, do you = think you could draft something up? Alissa >=20 > Basically this is a somewhat crappy infinite impulse response (IIR) = filter approximation of finite impulse response (FIR) filter for = computing the weighted moving average of the data transmission rate.=20 >=20 > Dito for rcvd. >=20 > Hope that helps,=20 >=20 > Cullen >=20 >=20 > As an irrelevant side note .. In practice, I have found that just = reporting the raw totals number of bytes sent since the box booted then = letting the management system filter and smooth that values works out = better than using this >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Sun Dec 13 17:06:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA551A8AEB for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 17:06:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KUsmR1xGy8Ze for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 17:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1722A1A8AE9 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 17:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CFJ79933; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 01:05:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.39) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 01:05:57 +0000 Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.252]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:52 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: Alissa Cooper , Cullen Jennings Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17 - crazy send math .... Thread-Index: AQHRMdLqcSlsPm6cuEG3isYlW8SklJ7Is1MAgAD/woA= Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 01:05:51 +0000 Message-ID: References: <37059182-6C51-49E3-83A0-D27F2C15A366@cooperw.in> <5C131A2D-2519-4CD5-AAB0-1E01563C9665@cooperw.in> <52C1D77C-4E21-4C1B-A16E-D20B638B38FF@cooperw.in> <4541D978-85FB-483A-A66C-F8D22D8619F7@cisco.com> <2AAB9C16-3E6E-42E7-849B-195F1BAD6737@cooperw.in> In-Reply-To: <2AAB9C16-3E6E-42E7-849B-195F1BAD6737@cooperw.in> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.566E15F6.00AC, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.252, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 4c383aabe28bef8974401179f19060d0 Archived-At: Cc: p2psip , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17 - crazy send math .... X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 01:06:04 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in] > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 1:49 AM > To: Cullen Jennings > Cc: Songhaibin (A); p2psip; draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-17 - c= razy > send math .... >=20 >=20 > > On Dec 8, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) > wrote: > > > > > >> On Nov 11, 2015, at 4:09 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> The definitions of EWMA_BYTES_SENT and EWMA_BYTES_RCVD seem > problematic. > >>> > >>> sent =3D alpha x sent_present + (1 - alpha) x sent rcvd =3D alpha x > >>> rcvd_present + (1 - alpha) x rcvd > >>> > >>> As written these equations are not right because sent/rcvd appear on = both > sides. It would be clearer to use last_sent and last_rcvd or some such on= the > right-hand side of these equations. But this begs some bigger questions: > >>> > >>> - Does this place a requirement on all nodes implementing this > specification to have to calculate these values every 5 seconds? > >>> - How are the values calculated the first time? > >>> - How was the value of 5 seconds chosen? > >>> > >>> [Haibin] This is incorporated from the early RELOAD document. Maybe > some author of the RELOAD protocol can give a better explanation. > >> > >> This still has not been explained. > >> > > > > I'm sure I know what this was meant to represent when it was written ..= .. > > > > sent for time period t should be set to the value of alpha times the am= ount > sent in this time period plus (1-alpha) times the value of send for the p= revious > time period. > > > > The value sent for the very first time period should simply be the amou= nt that > was sent in that time period. That is not computable before the end of th= e time > period. I doubt anyone cares what the values before the end of the first = time > period. Note that alpha is a constant that is probably compiled into the > application and not something we expect end users to set. >=20 > Thanks Cullen. >=20 > I think the draft needs some text to explain the above. Haibin, do you th= ink you > could draft something up? >=20 Yes. That's also my understanding of the text. I can write some text down. BR, -Haibin > Alissa >=20 > > > > Basically this is a somewhat crappy infinite impulse response (IIR) fil= ter > approximation of finite impulse response (FIR) filter for computing the w= eighted > moving average of the data transmission rate. > > > > Dito for rcvd. > > > > Hope that helps, > > > > Cullen > > > > > > As an irrelevant side note .. In practice, I have found that just > > reporting the raw totals number of bytes sent since the box booted > > then letting the management system filter and smooth that values works > > out better than using this > > > > > > > > > > From nobody Tue Dec 15 18:16:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietf.org Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7151A1A88; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:16:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.11.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151216021620.4789.37072.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:16:20 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org, p2psip@ietf.org Subject: [P2PSIP] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:16:20 -0000 Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I was slightly surprised by "IANA SHALL" do things. Don't we usually do IANA considerations without RFC 2119 language? From nobody Tue Dec 15 20:18:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietf.org Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA8D1A6FBC; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 20:18:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Barry Leiba" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.11.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151216041827.16193.95293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 20:18:27 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org, p2psip@ietf.org Subject: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 04:18:27 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For Sections 9.1 and 9.2, I would like to see some evidence of discussion that resulted in the decision to make the registry policies Standards Action. Did the working group actually discuss this and make a decision that Standards Action is right? What's the reasoning for not using some softer policy, such as "IETF Review" (which might allow for registrations from Experimental documents) or Specification Required (which would allow review by a designated expert of a non-RFC specification)? Why is Standards Action the right thing? Important note on the previous comment: Please don't just change this: talk with me. I'm actually asking a question, and it might well be that Standards Action is right. I want to hear the answer and have a discussion about it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to what Ben has already said... >From the shepherd writeup: "The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed for several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with nothing special worth noting." Is it really the case that with *several years* of discussion there's *nothing* worth pointing out as something that generated discussion? What were those several years spent on? "A review of Section 9.6 was requested to the APPS area and the authors considered the received feedback." Similarly: was there nothing about the feedback that was worth mentioning? I'm glad the authors considered it... it would have been good to say "the feedback was only on minor points," or to say what review brought up. "The idnits tool returns 5 warnings and 1 comment. They do not seem to be a problem." Well, one of the things that idnits calls out is this: -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6940, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. I believe it's not a problem that the abstract doesn't mention it, but one *reason* the abstract doesn't mention it is that the rest of the document doesn't mention it either. It's not at all clear WHY this document updates 6940, and that *is* a problem. Why? (This is in support of Ben's comment, as well as being a question to the shepherd.) The idnits tool also mentions the pre-5378 disclaimer, and the shepherd writeup has no information about why the disclaimer is needed. What text is in this document that is not subject to the IETF Trust terms from BCP 78, and why is it not? I think this needs an explanation. I strongly agree with Ben's comment about needing explanations for a number of SHOULDs (and SHOULD NOTs) in the document. RFC 2119 says that for SHOULD, "the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course." Without any explanation, there's no way for implementors to understand the implications and to weigh anything, and I tripped over that quite a number of times during my review. I agree with Spencer's comment that we don't usually strong-arm IANA with 2119 key words. It's a small point, and I don't think IANA are easily offended [ :-) ], but "IANA is asked to create" is a better approach than "IANA SHALL create", and so on. From nobody Tue Dec 15 23:35:08 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietf.org Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ECB71A89AC; Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:35:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Joel Jaeggli" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.11.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151216073506.5692.45759.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:35:06 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org, p2psip@ietf.org Subject: [P2PSIP] Joel Jaeggli's Abstain on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 07:35:06 -0000 Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: Abstain When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mhement Ersue did the opsdir review, While I would not prevent this document on a technical basis I would hope very strongly that in addressing the discusses that further refinement can improve the proposed standard... where that done I'd be happy to ballot no objection. ----------- reviewed the document "P2P Overlay Diagnostics" (draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19.txt) as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Intended status: Standards Track Updates: 6940 (if approved) Current IESG state: In Last Call (ends 2015-12-14) IANA Review State: IANA - Not OK (see for IANA comments at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/history/) Summary: The document describes mechanisms for P2P overlay diagnostics. It defines extensions to the RELOAD P2PSIP base protocol to collect diagnostic information, and details the protocol specifications for these extensions. Comments: - The document is not easy to read and the clarity could be improved. - It is common practice and rule to mention in the document abstract the RFC which is going to be updated. - There are many occurrences of the word “should”. Are these meant to be normative language and “SHOULD”? - There are different terms used in the first few sections, which are not introduced properly. One substantial term the reader is surprised with is "diagnostic kind type". - I believe the basic terms used in the document should be defined in a Terminology section if not defined in RFC 6940. The Terminology section should mention that the terminology from RFC 6940 is used. - The term "Kind" has been defined in RFC 6940. If the term "kind" is to be used as defined in RFC 6940 it should be used with a capital "K". - There are different very long sentences and a few 5-to-6-part-substantives which don't contribute to readability (e.g.: “single, general P2PSIP overlay diagnostic framework”). - Concerning: "The second is a new method and response, PathTrack," I would like to suggest to delete "and response" or call it "a new request/response method". The idnits tool returns one error and numerous warnings which need to be fixed (13 warnings, 2 comment and 1 error). See http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19.txt From nobody Wed Dec 16 06:31:19 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietf.org Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A30B1B2DD3; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 06:31:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Brian Haberman" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.11.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151216143118.10303.5234.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 06:31:18 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org, p2psip@ietf.org Subject: [P2PSIP] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 14:31:18 -0000 Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Ben and Barry that the "Updates RFC 6940" is not well-justified. I also agree with Joel that the readability makes it hard to completely understand what is being proposed. From nobody Wed Dec 16 12:06:42 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietf.org Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C91C71A8935; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:06:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Benoit Claise" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.11.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151216200640.15772.16745.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:06:40 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org, p2psip@ietf.org, "Mehmet \(NSN - DE/Munich\)" , draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org, Ersue@ietfa.amsl.com Subject: [P2PSIP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 20:06:41 -0000 Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Ben, Joel & Mehmet (OPS DIR), and Barry. On top of that, - This document looks to me as a specific implementation, written in a draft format. - While reading the document, I was wondering: Is this P2P specific or P2PSIP specific? Maybe a missed opportunity to have generic OAM principles for P2P, with RELOAD extension. - Finally, any connection with LIME, at least on the presentation aspects. From nobody Wed Dec 16 12:18:46 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D80F21A8994 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:18:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ljvxuNxL_qLW for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:18:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F6F71A8990 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:18:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F6020BAA for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:09:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:09:25 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=alq57I0j19NzCflzv8LvX0Bsex8=; b=kachU6 WADRQJ4GBmcO6BrIukACU7MimOkEk5ZMpGVua96YVWwFSfD2Mn3zLryGrl6CY+SJ 6A+HUtBS4K1n9+sSjpOnnn+dofti1cIJ0fbTNoXeO5YquiKmlwcWSuHmN7k625Jz j68SNZ9HgNkbXY9whWzJa36Ugbq8Z+DQ8BeUQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=alq57I0j19NzCfl zv8LvX0Bsex8=; b=VitUjCxzsr9X4P7qToHEdsVXsgTKGC6JPcf48aGW9sAQfRy vgzTBBxEn/QaDDnB97Dc3iZaW50T8jpRZgnmsDurVPgyFbwH17BxkJMywCP84Nws 1yt389IGC19AD4uU99WHg+d4xO8CybOsoqKYLcGLOgw/PnnKZ3Y+pARPjR7M= X-Sasl-enc: YzSUfFaZkEWcXVOdd8M84FY532bCp2QJViWA9wCbxhwb 1450296565 Received: from dhcp-10-150-9-247.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.88]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 642856801D0; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:09:25 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: <20151216041827.16193.95293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:09:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20151216041827.16193.95293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Barry Leiba X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) Archived-At: Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org, IESG , p2psip Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 20:18:46 -0000 Hi Barry, A little context about this document might be useful here. The original = version dates back to 2007 when there was a larger pool of people = interested in the p2psip work than there have been any time in the last = several years. A valiant few have carried this work forward but it=E2=80=99= s possible that folks=E2=80=99 memory of specific discussion about the = IANA registration policies may be fuzzy or may require digging through = long-ago mailing list archives. That=E2=80=99s also why the write-up = mentions =E2=80=9Cyears=E2=80=9D of discussion, because while the = document has been around for a long time, discussion has waxed and = waned. The document=E2=80=99s age is also the reason for the pre-5378 = disclaimer. Authors should chime in on the substance but wanted the background to be = clear. Alissa > On Dec 15, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Barry Leiba = wrote: >=20 > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: Discuss >=20 > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut = this > introductory paragraph, however.) >=20 >=20 > Please refer to = https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >=20 >=20 > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > For Sections 9.1 and 9.2, I would like to see some evidence of = discussion > that resulted in the decision to make the registry policies Standards > Action. Did the working group actually discuss this and make a = decision > that Standards Action is right? What's the reasoning for not using = some > softer policy, such as "IETF Review" (which might allow for = registrations > from Experimental documents) or Specification Required (which would = allow > review by a designated expert of a non-RFC specification)? Why is > Standards Action the right thing? >=20 > Important note on the previous comment: Please don't just change this: > talk with me. I'm actually asking a question, and it might well be = that > Standards Action is right. I want to hear the answer and have a > discussion about it. >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > In addition to what Ben has already said... >=20 >> =46rom the shepherd writeup: >=20 > "The normal WG process was followed and the document has been = discussed > for > several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with > nothing > special worth noting." >=20 > Is it really the case that with *several years* of discussion there's > *nothing* worth pointing out as something that generated discussion?=20= > What were those several years spent on? >=20 > "A review of Section 9.6 was requested to the APPS area and the = authors > considered the received feedback." >=20 > Similarly: was there nothing about the feedback that was worth > mentioning? I'm glad the authors considered it... it would have been > good to say "the feedback was only on minor points," or to say what > review brought up. >=20 > "The idnits tool returns 5 warnings and 1 comment. They do not seem to = be > a > problem." >=20 > Well, one of the things that idnits calls out is this: > -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6940, but > the > abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. >=20 > I believe it's not a problem that the abstract doesn't mention it, but > one *reason* the abstract doesn't mention it is that the rest of the > document doesn't mention it either. It's not at all clear WHY this > document updates 6940, and that *is* a problem. Why? (This is in > support of Ben's comment, as well as being a question to the = shepherd.) >=20 > The idnits tool also mentions the pre-5378 disclaimer, and the = shepherd > writeup has no information about why the disclaimer is needed. What = text > is in this document that is not subject to the IETF Trust terms from = BCP > 78, and why is it not? I think this needs an explanation. >=20 > I strongly agree with Ben's comment about needing explanations for a > number of SHOULDs (and SHOULD NOTs) in the document. RFC 2119 says = that > for SHOULD, "the full implications must be understood and carefully > weighed before choosing a different course." Without any explanation, > there's no way for implementors to understand the implications and to > weigh anything, and I tripped over that quite a number of times during = my > review. >=20 > I agree with Spencer's comment that we don't usually strong-arm IANA = with > 2119 key words. It's a small point, and I don't think IANA are easily > offended [ :-) ], but "IANA is asked to create" is a better approach = than > "IANA SHALL create", and so on. >=20 >=20 From nobody Wed Dec 16 12:56:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9BC1A89C7; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:56:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bohb3Sqman_c; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:56:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk0-x234.google.com (mail-vk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DC6A1A89F6; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:56:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id j66so34284244vkg.1; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:56:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xMHZhAav042vL/x3oAYjnfe4Wjk06ZQ/NtN9d7VaX94=; b=lz6vjbqszX2rEk4DWHSwr/Gk/FoStui+cGw/ZsJWvrUvV7CPrwBOTAnKytgl3UH75g zEPHtyawYN6yLJDAN0zH+WWNfzbVnXfxTLcyUFBVTaYEK6IEirlUjW6sGqGYh7n1NrSh LWQq/Avi3nnGxFY+Wh50GhYgrt2GounaVAAMz85jGqxTfGfIb+uqQ7sTiFKcvoP9MFa/ oT4PRV8JxwVTaQLCCWpdMXyJV1hEbq1BuX4vo/tG5LfVXTlVpkm/Fm2pf+v2d1UFCKmk B1P12Rq3D55qU9zcz/VfzhGKzvXbN65JYym+xIgs2JK8/pzSOiMt7mvzNdGKa2nsYngZ sYeg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.21.212 with SMTP id 203mr18426389vkv.133.1450299387261; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:56:27 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.31.182.211 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:56:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20151216041827.16193.95293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:56:27 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4_jli18l_7E9skBAbNFil2pkSzw Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Alissa Cooper Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org, IESG , p2psip Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 20:56:29 -0000 > A little context about this document might be useful here. Yes, and thanks! > The document=E2=80=99s age is also the reason for the pre-5378 disclaimer= . I've checked the history of the pre-working-group draft, and I see that Zheng Hewen (Huawei Nanjing) is the only early author whose name is not on a post-5378 version. If he is, indeed, not contactable, then the pre-5378 disclaimer is needed. But if Hewen can be contacted and can agree to the 5378 terms, we could get rid of the disclaimer. I presume we're not able to contact him now, and that the disclaimer is needed. Ah, well. Barry From nobody Wed Dec 16 13:09:55 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10A161A8A64 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VGt4Lgg7M4dB for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 072D41A8A63 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l126so57485313wml.0 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it-uc3m-es.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:content-type:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zRObmuGV+k1MaKBcYHSUvavdv9CNL1FHbaTlGbT2+Nw=; b=QcaoUn7+ttTCsaZpsxzZZNzwdW2TehLb8t+bJkQhGE1aBWtK0ROpEjd46PrgOm3N42 MXHXOhy1RHqPQ/WdLK5rYZRh7FSdgbmpha4ZivSoKCTjA4EIY9Wys59mrBmleZR6HH9Z GgMsC0ZsX9V0Kmpi8qbyk4mciQnZdReWE+vnGLCho0G/yb7fTT46rI/LEUx96hdSW7A1 JyduvYKsSLGW+hrWQfxvnGTlFubO0QKGlOCt9m1ucMBIwcrBqOPRubIpVnRXQnZ6cWKJ Cvu/l6yQht+TownX9U0zOtBdGMK94LWa6neoR1xHG5E8/vOcEVKo2edviYTnDBoks2VO Si1A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:date :in-reply-to:references:organization:content-type:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zRObmuGV+k1MaKBcYHSUvavdv9CNL1FHbaTlGbT2+Nw=; b=JYPhorcuu/tsJgN4hUjtI0z+0UhZOVUs7P/FiWuMXS7MgAx55EBnlpfWVkAreJfYjg I3IXpODo6m1OCggCWljBAIe/jb9ZmIZyOLSkEgS7OzfZml4LURrpzTij0lftuSslBWZM t5H80yWPwBBKHhNMgtSFaIxTTC6Elrx8DJ6HxARlt32/46bCyaMbdIzL21KxOneteUce fbA3MyJz5gpqsVBk0yEU2D1brxJL4bwa80DI9tOo96wER8RbOrEZSXthsWcxB1mulBjF r2CEwv3W/SnHPgOMxH7B0GzUScnpEhh6L1Y4ZIMTQwEYH0REOYaxTJj9hCgsUwgzD5TY qdeA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm8IgyXBfui4UvgaoB32y7TPzVSk7cFdRZcIqSyvfcTaYpUpnL+aeYUVDwk86CDUI30tSIo+ZOVe1wZmnb5VTBc3Ox0Dg== X-Received: by 10.194.188.11 with SMTP id fw11mr59384172wjc.146.1450300187553; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from acorde.lan (82.158.203.25.dyn.user.ono.com. [82.158.203.25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v196sm8882532wmv.10.2015.12.16.13.09.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:09:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1450300186.5878.5.camel@it.uc3m.es> From: Carlos =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Bernardos Cano To: Barry Leiba , Alissa Cooper Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 22:09:46 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20151216041827.16193.95293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.2-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org, IESG , p2psip Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 21:09:52 -0000 Hi Barry, As document shepherd, I can also try to answer some of your comments: - On the "several years of discussion" comment, well, I just agree on what Alissa already said. - On the APPS area review, I could have been more specific (sorry). There was not really any big issue and the authors did take care of addressing the received comments. Thanks, Carlos On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 15:56 -0500, Barry Leiba wrote: > > A little context about this document might be useful here. > > Yes, and thanks! > > > The document’s age is also the reason for the pre-5378 disclaimer. > > I've checked the history of the pre-working-group draft, and I see > that Zheng Hewen (Huawei Nanjing) is the only early author whose name > is not on a post-5378 version.  If he is, indeed, not contactable, > then the pre-5378 disclaimer is needed.  But if Hewen can be > contacted > and can agree to the 5378 terms, we could get rid of the disclaimer. > > I presume we're not able to contact him now, and that the disclaimer > is needed.  Ah, well. > > Barry From nobody Wed Dec 16 23:20:27 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietf.org Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA7B1B2A3D; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:20:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jari Arkko" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.11.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151217072025.29734.77582.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 23:20:25 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org, p2psip@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com Subject: [P2PSIP] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:20:25 -0000 Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Per Alexey's Gen-ART review and my own read, Section 9.1 is inconsistent with Section 5.3. The document says earlier that first and last bits are reserved. This is not shown in the table at all. What's perhaps causing the confusion is that there are special values (all 0s and all 1s) that convey nothing is requested and that everything is requested. This does not appear to be the same as having two reserved bits. You may want one or the other or both, but as it stands 9.1 or 5.3 do not seem to be saying the same thing. Also, Section 5.3 uses "delimited" when it probably should have said "terminated", unless there's more substructure in the SOFTWARE_VERSION string than is identified by the text. From nobody Thu Dec 17 04:15:33 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietf.org Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F171B2B3E; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 04:15:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Stephen Farrell" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.11.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151217121532.20025.11616.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 04:15:32 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org, p2psip@ietf.org Subject: [P2PSIP] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 12:15:32 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - section 3a.: what kind of crypto processing overhead would make a node unresponsive? Seems a bit odd to me. - 4.1: the para that starts with "The diagnostic information can only be provided to authorized nodes." seems pointless to me and could be deleted. - 5.3: STATUS_INFO - I don't get the benefit of half-specifying a thing like this; PROCESS_POWER is also under specified. - 5.3, SOFTWARE_VERSION etc: providing this information ought not be on by default - even if the overlay config calls for it to be available to node X each node can and should decide itself whether or not to send. While you do say (in 6.3 and 7 and 8) that nodes need to check that the requestor is authorized to get this information, I think you ought also say that the default is to not send. (This is not a discuss because I think you have enough of those;-) From nobody Tue Dec 22 23:50:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E451ACD72; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:50:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3CRdMvQfosoM; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:50:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30DB91ACD71; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:50:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CFU88804; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:50:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:50:02 +0000 Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.252]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:49:51 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: Ben Campbell , The IESG Thread-Topic: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHRN6J6WuK73+MtrUu5ABUtXy96nJ7WiB2g Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:49:51 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151216013818.17008.69143.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20151216013818.17008.69143.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.567A522C.006F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.252, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 25dbf3bc9acfa760ab9a16d45cfae8a0 Archived-At: Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org" , "p2psip@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:50:11 -0000 VGhhbmsgeW91LCBCZW4sDQoNClNvcnJ5IGZvciB0aGUgbGF0ZSByZXBseSBkdWUgdG8gdGhlIGJ1 c2luZXNzIHRyaXAgcmVjZW50bHkuDQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4g RnJvbTogQmVuIENhbXBiZWxsIFttYWlsdG86YmVuQG5vc3RydW0uY29tXQ0KPiBTZW50OiBXZWRu ZXNkYXksIERlY2VtYmVyIDE2LCAyMDE1IDk6MzggQU0NCj4gVG86IFRoZSBJRVNHDQo+IENjOiBk cmFmdC1pZXRmLXAycHNpcC1kaWFnbm9zdGljc0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgcDJwc2lwLWNoYWlyc0BpZXRm Lm9yZzsNCj4gY2piY0BpdC51YzNtLmVzOyBwMnBzaXBAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gU3ViamVjdDogQmVu IENhbXBiZWxsJ3MgTm8gT2JqZWN0aW9uIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcDJwc2lwLWRpYWdub3N0aWNz LTE5OiAod2l0aA0KPiBDT01NRU5UKQ0KPiANCj4gQmVuIENhbXBiZWxsIGhhcyBlbnRlcmVkIHRo ZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgYmFsbG90IHBvc2l0aW9uIGZvcg0KPiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXAycHNpcC1kaWFn bm9zdGljcy0xOTogTm8gT2JqZWN0aW9uDQo+IA0KPiBXaGVuIHJlc3BvbmRpbmcsIHBsZWFzZSBr ZWVwIHRoZSBzdWJqZWN0IGxpbmUgaW50YWN0IGFuZCByZXBseSB0byBhbGwgZW1haWwNCj4gYWRk cmVzc2VzIGluY2x1ZGVkIGluIHRoZSBUbyBhbmQgQ0MgbGluZXMuIChGZWVsIGZyZWUgdG8gY3V0 IHRoaXMgaW50cm9kdWN0b3J5DQo+IHBhcmFncmFwaCwgaG93ZXZlci4pDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gUGxl YXNlIHJlZmVyIHRvIGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2llc2cvc3RhdGVtZW50L2Rpc2N1c3Mt Y3JpdGVyaWEuaHRtbA0KPiBmb3IgbW9yZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhYm91dCBJRVNHIERJU0NVU1Mg YW5kIENPTU1FTlQgcG9zaXRpb25zLg0KPiANCj4gDQo+IFRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgYWxvbmcgd2l0 aCBvdGhlciBiYWxsb3QgcG9zaXRpb25zLCBjYW4gYmUgZm91bmQgaGVyZToNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly9k YXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wMnBzaXAtZGlhZ25vc3RpY3MvDQo+ IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gQ09NTUVOVDoNCj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0K PiANCj4gR2VuZXJhbCBjb21tZW50czoNCj4gDQo+IFRoZSBkcmFmdCBzdHlsZXMgaXRzZWxmIGFz IFAyUFNJUCBkaWFnbm9zdGljcy4gQnV0IFAyUFNJUCBpcyBhIHVzYWdlIG9mIFJFTE9BRCwNCj4g YW5kIHRoZSBkcmFmdCBtZW50aW9ucyBpdCBpcyBnZW5lcmFsbHkgYXBwbGljYWJsZSB0byBSRUxP QUQuIFRoaXMgaXMgbWlzbGVhZGluZywNCj4gYW5kIG1pZ2h0IGFydGlmaWNpYWxseSBsaW1pdCBp dCdzIGFwcGxpY2FiaWxpdHkuICBQZXJoYXBzIHRoaXMgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGNhbGxlZA0KPiBSRUxP QUQgZGlhZ25vc3RpY3M/IE9yIGlmIGl0IGlzIHJlYWxseSBzcGVjaWZpYyB0byBQMlBTSVAsIHRo YXQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGNsYXJpZmllZC4NCj4gDQoNClRoZXJlIHdhcyBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9uIHRo aXMsIGFuZCB0aGUgcmVzdWx0IHdhcyB0byBtYWtlIGl0IGdlbmVyYWwgUDJQIG92ZXJsYXkgZGlh Z25vc3RpY3MsIHRoYXQncyB3aHkgdGhlIHRpdGxlIGhhZCBiZWVuIGNoYW5nZWQgZnJvbSAiUDJQ U0lQLi4uIiB0byAiUDJQIE92ZXJsYXkuLi4iLCBhbmQgSSBndWVzcyB0aGUgdGl0bGUgaXMgbm90 IG1pc2xlYWRpbmcuIFRoZSBhdXRob3JzIHJlbW92ZWQgYSBsb3Qgb2YgdGVybWlub2xvZ2llcyBy ZWxhdGVkIHRvIFAyUFNJUCB0byBtYWtlIGl0IGdlbmVyYWwsIGJ1dCBzdGlsbCBsZWZ0IHNvbWUg YW1iaWd1aXR5IHRlcm1zIGluc2lkZS4gQW5kIHlvdSBhcmUgcmlnaHQsIHdlIHdpbGwgcmV2aXNl IHRoZSBkcmFmdCBhbmQgZWxpbWluYXRlIGluYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgIlAyUFNJUCIgc2VudGVuY2Vz IHRvIG1ha2UgaXQgY2xlYW4uDQoNCj4gVGhlIGhlYWRlcnMgc2hvdyB0aGF0IHRoaXMgZHJhZnQg dXBkYXRlcyBSRkMgNjk0MC4gQXMgZmFyIGFzIEkgY2FuIHRlbGwsIGl0DQo+IGV4dGVuZHMgNjk0 MCBhbG9uZyBkZWZpbmVkIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBwb2ludHMuIElmIHNvLCB0aGF0J3Mgbm90IHJlYWxs eSBhbiB1cGRhdGUuDQo+IChBbHNvLCB0aGUgc2hlcGhlcmQgd3JpdGUgdXAgc2F5cyBpdCBkb2Vz IG5vdCB1cGRhdGUNCj4gYW55dGhpbmcuKQ0KDQpJJ20gbm90IHN1cmUsIGJ1dCB3ZSBjYW4gZGlz Y3VzcywgdGhlcmUgd2FzIGEgcmVxdWVzdCB0byBjaGFuZ2UgaXQgdG8gInVwZGF0ZSIuIFRoaXMg ZG9jdW1lbnQgbWFrZXMgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyB0byB0aGUgUkVMT0FEIFBpbmcgbWVzc2FnZSBhbmQg ZGVmaW5lcyBhIG5ldyBtZXNzYWdlIFBhdGhfVHJhY2suIElNSE8sICJleHRlbnNpb24iIG1pZ2h0 IGJlIGJldHRlci4gQW55IHRob3VnaHQ/DQoNCj4gDQo+IFNwZWNpZmljIGNvbW1lbnRzOg0KPiAN Cj4gLSA0LjEsIDJuZCB0byBsYXN0IHBhcmFncmFwaDogIlRoZSBkZWZhdWx0IHBvbGljeSBvciBh Y2Nlc3MgcnVsZSBmb3IgYSB0eXBlIG9mDQo+IGRpYWdub3N0aWMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gaXMgInBl cm1pdCIgdW5sZXNzIHNwZWNpZmllZCBpbiB0aGUgZGlhZ25vc3RpY3MgZXh0ZW5zaW9uDQo+IGRv Y3VtZW50LiINCj4gDQo+IENhbiB5b3UgZWxhYm9yYXRlIG9uIHRoaXM/IEkgYXNzdW1lICJkaWFn bm9zdGljIGV4dGVuc2lvbiBkb2N1bWVudCINCj4gcmVmZXJzIHRvIGEgc3BlYyB0aGF0IHJlZ2lz dGVycyBzb21ldGhpbmcgaW4gb25lIG9mIHRoZSBuZXcgcmVnaXN0cmllcyBkZWZpbmVkDQo+IGhl cmVpbj8gIEhvdyBkb2VzIGEgcG9saWN5IG9mICJwZXJtaXQiIGludGVyYWN0IHdpdGggdGhlIGF1 dGhvcml6YXRpb24NCj4gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGFuZCBzZWN1cml0eSBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucyBl bHNld2hlcmUgaW4gdGhlIGRyYWZ0Pw0KPiANCg0KVGhlcmUgaXMgYSBtaXN0YWtlIGluIHRoZSBy ZWZlcnJlZCBzZW50ZW5jZS4gQXMgaXQgaXMgc2FpZCBpbiBTZWN0aW9uIDUuMywgIiBBY2Nlc3Mg dG8gZWFjaCBraW5kIG9mIGRpYWdub3N0aWMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gTVVTVCBOT1QgYmUgYWxsb3dl ZCB1bmxlc3MgY29tcGxpYW50IHRvIHRoZSBydWxlcyBkZWZpbmVkIGluIFNlY3Rpb24gNy4iIFNv IHRoZSBhY3R1YWwgZGVmYXVsdCBhY2Nlc3MgcnVsZSBpcyAiZGVueSIgaW5zdGVhZCBvZiAicGVy bWl0Ii4gVGhlIHNlbnRlbmNlIHNob3VsZCBiZSBjaGFuZ2VkIHRvICIgVGhlIGRlZmF1bHQgcG9s aWN5IG9yIGFjY2VzcyBydWxlIGZvciBhIHR5cGUgb2YgZGlhZ25vc3RpYyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBp cyAiZGVueSIgdW5sZXNzIHNwZWNpZmllZCBpbiB0aGUgb3ZlcmxheSBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9uIGZp bGUuIg0KDQoNCj4gLTYuMjoNCj4gVGhlIHNlY3Rpb24gaGFzIGxvdHMgb2YgU0hPVUxEcywgd2hl cmUgdGhlIHJlYXNvbnMgdGhleSBhcmUgbm90IE1VU1RzIGFyZQ0KPiBub3Qgb2J2aW91cy4gUGxl YXNlIG9mZmVyIHJlYXNvbnMgd2h5IGFuIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIG1pZ2h0IGNob29zZSBub3Qg dG8NCj4gZm9sbG93IHRoZSBTSE9VTEQuDQoNCkkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBjaGFuZ2UgdGhlbSB0 byAiTVVTVCJzLg0KDQo+IA0KPiAtIDYuNCwgZmlyc3QgYW5kIGxhc3QgcGFyYWdyYXBoczoNCj4g VGhlIE1BWXMgc2VlbXMgbGlrZSBhIHN0YXRlbWVudHMgb2YgZmFjdCByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiBub3Jt YXRpdmUgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzLg0KDQpJIGFncmVlLiBTbyB3ZSB3aWxsIGNoYW5nZSB0aGVtIGZy b20gIk1BWSIgdG8gIm1heSIuDQoNCj4gDQo+IC02LjQsIDJuZCBwYXJhZ3JhcGg6DQo+IERvZXMg dGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBoYXZlIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBmb3IgY2xvY2sgcmVzb2x1dGlvbiBvciBz a2V3PyAoSXQgc2VlbXMNCj4gb2RkIHRvIG1lbnRpb24gdGhlIE5UUCBjYXBhYmlsaXRpZXMgdW5s ZXNzIHRoZXkgbWF0dGVyLikNCj4gDQoNCkl0IGhhcyByZXF1aXJlbWVudCBmb3IgdGltZSBzeW5j aHJvbml6YXRpb24gYW5kIGxlYXZlcyBjbG9jayByZXNvbHV0aW9uIG9yIHNrZXcgdG8gaW1wbGVt ZW50YXRpb24uIE5UUCBpcyBqdXN0IGZvciByZWZlcmVuY2UgKG9uZSBleGFtcGxlIG1ldGhvZCBm b3IgdGltZSBzeW5jaHJvbml6YXRpb24pLg0KDQo+IDkuMSAoYW5kIG90aGVycyBpbiB0aGUgSUFO QSBzZWN0aW9uKQ0KPiANCj4gV2hlcmUgc2hvdWxkIHRoZXNlIG5ldyByZWdpc3RyaWVzIGJlIGNy ZWF0ZWQ/IChJIGltYWdpbmUgSUFOQSBjYW4gZmlndXJlIGl0DQo+IG91dCwgYnV0IGl0J3MgYmVz dCB0byBiZSBleHBsaWNpdC4pDQo+IA0KDQpTaGFsbCB3ZSBtZW50aW9uIHRoYXQgdGhleSBhcmUg Y3JlYXRlZCB1bmRlciB0aGUgcHJvdG9jb2wgUkVMT0FEPyBJZiB0aGF0IGlzIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSwg SSBjYW4gYWRkIGEgbGl0dGxlIHRleHQgZm9yIHRoYXQuDQoNCg0KPiBFZGl0b3JpYWw6DQo+IA0K PiAtIDQuMSwgMm5kIHBhcmFncmFwaDoNCj4gT0xEOg0KPiBFc3NlbnRpYWxseSwgdGhpcyBkb2N1 bWVudCByZXVzZXMgUkVMT0FEIFtSRkM2OTQwXSBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBleHRlbmRzDQo+ IHRoZW0gdG8gaW50cm9kdWNlIHRoZSBuZXcgZGlhZ25vc3RpY3MgbWV0aG9kcy4NCj4gTkVXOg0K PiBFc3NlbnRpYWxseSwgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCByZXVzZXMgdGhlIFJFTE9BRCBbUkZDNjk0MF0g c3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBhbmQNCj4gZXh0ZW5kcyBpdCB0byBpbnRyb2R1Y2UgdGhlIG5ldyBkaWFn bm9zdGljcyBtZXRob2RzLg0KPiBFTkQuDQo+IA0KDQpUaGFuayB5b3UgdmVyeSBtdWNoIGZvciB0 aGUgY29tbWVudHMsIHBsZWFzZSBjaGVjayBpZiB0aGUgYWJvdmUgYW5zd2VycyB5b3VyIHF1ZXN0 aW9ucy4NCg0KQlIsDQotSGFpYmluIFNvbmcNCg0KDQo= From nobody Wed Dec 23 00:20:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19E51ACDB2; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:20:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1EaODrp_csmu; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6C761ACDB1; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:20:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CBX90311; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:20:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML705-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.168) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:20:04 +0000 Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:20:03 +0000 Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.252]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:20:00 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: Spencer Dawkins , The IESG Thread-Topic: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHRN6fEIBsmxtddzE65MVD+9b2Qo57YRafQ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:19:58 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151216021620.4789.37072.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20151216021620.4789.37072.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.567A5935.0005, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.252, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: cc753e86f5b9119d2949fcbb87c734e8 Archived-At: Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org" , "p2psip@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:20:09 -0000 RGVhciBTcGVuY2VyLA0KDQpTb3JyeSBmb3IgdGhlIGxhdGUgcmVwbHkuIA0KDQo+IEkgd2FzIHNs aWdodGx5IHN1cnByaXNlZCBieSAiSUFOQSBTSEFMTCIgZG8gdGhpbmdzLiBEb24ndCB3ZSB1c3Vh bGx5IGRvIElBTkENCj4gY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbnMgd2l0aG91dCBSRkMgMjExOSBsYW5ndWFnZT8N Cj4NCg0KVGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciBwb2ludGluZyBvdXQuIFdlIGNhbiBjaGFuZ2UgaXQuDQoNCkJS LA0KLUhhaWJpbg0KDQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogU3Bl bmNlciBEYXdraW5zIFttYWlsdG86c3BlbmNlcmRhd2tpbnMuaWV0ZkBnbWFpbC5jb21dDQo+IFNl bnQ6IFdlZG5lc2RheSwgRGVjZW1iZXIgMTYsIDIwMTUgMTA6MTYgQU0NCj4gVG86IFRoZSBJRVNH DQo+IENjOiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXAycHNpcC1kaWFnbm9zdGljc0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgcDJwc2lwLWNo YWlyc0BpZXRmLm9yZzsNCj4gY2piY0BpdC51YzNtLmVzOyBwMnBzaXBAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gU3Vi amVjdDogU3BlbmNlciBEYXdraW5zJyBObyBPYmplY3Rpb24gb24gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wMnBzaXAt ZGlhZ25vc3RpY3MtMTk6DQo+ICh3aXRoIENPTU1FTlQpDQo+IA0KPiBTcGVuY2VyIERhd2tpbnMg aGFzIGVudGVyZWQgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBiYWxsb3QgcG9zaXRpb24gZm9yDQo+IGRyYWZ0LWll dGYtcDJwc2lwLWRpYWdub3N0aWNzLTE5OiBObyBPYmplY3Rpb24NCj4gDQo+IFdoZW4gcmVzcG9u ZGluZywgcGxlYXNlIGtlZXAgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgbGluZSBpbnRhY3QgYW5kIHJlcGx5IHRvIGFs bCBlbWFpbA0KPiBhZGRyZXNzZXMgaW5jbHVkZWQgaW4gdGhlIFRvIGFuZCBDQyBsaW5lcy4gKEZl ZWwgZnJlZSB0byBjdXQgdGhpcyBpbnRyb2R1Y3RvcnkNCj4gcGFyYWdyYXBoLCBob3dldmVyLikN Cj4gDQo+IA0KPiBQbGVhc2UgcmVmZXIgdG8gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaWVzZy9zdGF0 ZW1lbnQvZGlzY3Vzcy1jcml0ZXJpYS5odG1sDQo+IGZvciBtb3JlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFib3V0 IElFU0cgRElTQ1VTUyBhbmQgQ09NTUVOVCBwb3NpdGlvbnMuDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gVGhlIGRvY3Vt ZW50LCBhbG9uZyB3aXRoIG90aGVyIGJhbGxvdCBwb3NpdGlvbnMsIGNhbiBiZSBmb3VuZCBoZXJl Og0KPiBodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLXAycHNpcC1k aWFnbm9zdGljcy8NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPiBDT01NRU5UOg0KPiAt LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQo+IA0KPiBJIHdhcyBzbGlnaHRseSBzdXJwcmlzZWQgYnkgIklBTkEgU0hB TEwiIGRvIHRoaW5ncy4gRG9uJ3Qgd2UgdXN1YWxseSBkbyBJQU5BDQo+IGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25z IHdpdGhvdXQgUkZDIDIxMTkgbGFuZ3VhZ2U/DQo+IA0KDQo= From nobody Wed Dec 23 00:20:56 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754F61ACDB3; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:20:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2M-IaaH1EyMp; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:20:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEFE41ACDB0; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:20:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CFU92329; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:20:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML708-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.202) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:20:48 +0000 Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:20:48 +0000 Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.252]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:20:44 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: Ben Campbell , The IESG Thread-Topic: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHRN6J6WuK73+MtrUu5ABUtXy96nJ7MZmCAgAvf0/A= Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:20:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151216013818.17008.69143.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <66FD7619-32E0-47FD-8006-94C13034AB11@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <66FD7619-32E0-47FD-8006-94C13034AB11@nostrum.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.567A5962.0015, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.252, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 25dbf3bc9acfa760ab9a16d45cfae8a0 Archived-At: Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org" , "p2psip@ietf.org" , Roni Even Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:20:54 -0000 Dear Ben No problem, we will also update with Roni's new email address. BR, -Haibin Song > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 11:00 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org; > p2psip@ietf.org; cjbc@it.uc3m.es; Roni Even > Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics= -19: > (with COMMENT) >=20 > BTW, I think the draft has the wrong address for Roni. > roni.even@mail101.huawei.com bounces. >=20 > On 15 Dec 2015, at 19:38, Ben Campbell wrote: >=20 > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: No Objection > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut > > this introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > General comments: > > > > The draft styles itself as P2PSIP diagnostics. But P2PSIP is a usage > > of RELOAD, and the draft mentions it is generally applicable to > > RELOAD. > > This > > is misleading, and might artificially limit it's applicability. > > Perhaps > > this should be called RELOAD diagnostics? Or if it is really specific > > to P2PSIP, that should be clarified. > > > > The headers show that this draft updates RFC 6940. As far as I can > > tell, it extends 6940 along defined extension points. If so, that's > > not really an update. (Also, the shepherd write up says it does not > > update > > anything.) > > > > Specific comments: > > > > - 4.1, 2nd to last paragraph: "The default policy or access rule for a > > type of diagnostic information is "permit" unless specified in the > > diagnostics extension document." > > > > Can you elaborate on this? I assume "diagnostic extension document" > > refers to a spec that registers something in one of the new registries > > defined herein? How does a policy of "permit" interact with the > > authorization requirements and security considerations elsewhere in > > the draft? > > > > -6.2: > > The section has lots of SHOULDs, where the reasons they are not MUSTs > > are not obvious. Please offer reasons why an implementation might > > choose not to follow the SHOULD. > > > > - 6.4, first and last paragraphs: > > The MAYs seems like a statements of fact rather than normative > > requirements. > > > > -6.4, 2nd paragraph: > > Does this document have requirements for clock resolution or skew? (It > > seems odd to mention the NTP capabilities unless they matter.) > > > > 9.1 (and others in the IANA section) > > > > Where should these new registries be created? (I imagine IANA can > > figure it out, but it's best to be explicit.) > > > > Editorial: > > > > - 4.1, 2nd paragraph: > > OLD: > > Essentially, this document reuses RELOAD [RFC6940] specification and > > extends them to introduce the new diagnostics methods. > > NEW: > > Essentially, this document reuses the RELOAD [RFC6940] specification > > and extends it to introduce the new diagnostics methods. > > END. From nobody Wed Dec 23 00:42:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659671ACDCB; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:42:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X3eI_ja2_qdj; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:42:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C28DB1ACDC3; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:42:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CBX92891; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:42:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML706-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.182) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:42:25 +0000 Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.182) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:42:25 +0000 Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.252]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:42:18 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: Barry Leiba , Alissa Cooper Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHRN7jZcW5g6EknVEW+vQa5IqGiDp7NhcIAgAANJoCACrffAA== Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:42:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151216041827.16193.95293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.567A5E80.0043, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.252, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 52bea3f1f0ff1467495177818fdeaedb Archived-At: Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org" , IESG , p2psip Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:42:45 -0000 WWVzLiBUaGF0J3MgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0uIEJ1dCBJIGNhbiBzdGlsbCBjb250YWN0IHdpdGggSGV3 ZW4uIERvIHdlIG5lZWQgYW4gb3JhbCBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgb3IgdGhlIHdyaXR0ZW4gYWdyZWVtZW50 IGZyb20gaGltPyBJZiBpdCBpcyBqdXN0IGFuIG9yYWwgYWdyZWVtZW50LiBJIGNhbiBkbyBpdCBx dWlja2x5IGFuZCBjaGFuZ2UgdGhlIGRpc2NsYWltZXIgd2hlbiB3ZSByZXZpc2UgdGhlIGRyYWZ0 Lg0KDQpCZXN0IFJlZ2FyZHMhDQotSGFpYmluDQoNCg0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2Ut LS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBQMlBTSVAgW21haWx0bzpwMnBzaXAtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24g QmVoYWxmIE9mIEJhcnJ5IExlaWJhDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJlciAxNywgMjAx NSA0OjU2IEFNDQo+IFRvOiBBbGlzc2EgQ29vcGVyDQo+IENjOiBwMnBzaXAtY2hhaXJzQGlldGYu b3JnOyBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXAycHNpcC1kaWFnbm9zdGljc0BpZXRmLm9yZzsgSUVTRzsgcDJwc2lw DQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbUDJQU0lQXSBCYXJyeSBMZWliYSdzIERpc2N1c3Mgb24gZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1wMnBzaXAtZGlhZ25vc3RpY3MtMTk6DQo+ICh3aXRoIERJU0NVU1MgYW5kIENPTU1FTlQp DQo+IA0KPiA+IEEgbGl0dGxlIGNvbnRleHQgYWJvdXQgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBtaWdodCBiZSB1 c2VmdWwgaGVyZS4NCj4gDQo+IFllcywgYW5kIHRoYW5rcyENCj4gDQo+ID4gVGhlIGRvY3VtZW50 4oCZcyBhZ2UgaXMgYWxzbyB0aGUgcmVhc29uIGZvciB0aGUgcHJlLTUzNzggZGlzY2xhaW1lci4N Cj4gDQo+IEkndmUgY2hlY2tlZCB0aGUgaGlzdG9yeSBvZiB0aGUgcHJlLXdvcmtpbmctZ3JvdXAg ZHJhZnQsIGFuZCBJIHNlZSB0aGF0IFpoZW5nDQo+IEhld2VuIChIdWF3ZWkgTmFuamluZykgaXMg dGhlIG9ubHkgZWFybHkgYXV0aG9yIHdob3NlIG5hbWUgaXMgbm90IG9uIGENCj4gcG9zdC01Mzc4 IHZlcnNpb24uICBJZiBoZSBpcywgaW5kZWVkLCBub3QgY29udGFjdGFibGUsIHRoZW4gdGhlIHBy ZS01Mzc4DQo+IGRpc2NsYWltZXIgaXMgbmVlZGVkLiAgQnV0IGlmIEhld2VuIGNhbiBiZSBjb250 YWN0ZWQgYW5kIGNhbiBhZ3JlZSB0byB0aGUNCj4gNTM3OCB0ZXJtcywgd2UgY291bGQgZ2V0IHJp ZCBvZiB0aGUgZGlzY2xhaW1lci4NCj4gDQo+IEkgcHJlc3VtZSB3ZSdyZSBub3QgYWJsZSB0byBj b250YWN0IGhpbSBub3csIGFuZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBkaXNjbGFpbWVyIGlzIG5lZWRlZC4NCj4gQWgs IHdlbGwuDQo+IA0KPiBCYXJyeQ0KPiANCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gUDJQU0lQIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBQMlBTSVBAaWV0Zi5v cmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9wMnBzaXANCg== From nobody Wed Dec 23 06:54:35 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83721A0151; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:54:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id snMGyQGLfXcP; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:54:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk0-x234.google.com (mail-vk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5D8B1A014F; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:54:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id a188so135921687vkc.0; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:54:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=iFxH/g4fvOOwbJ68utFdIOo/qKJqFh0/nw4K1k3cZpw=; b=JW8cdTUJd8kggM31WJtk30IzphNz/aVyfplw+zLmYSAiSWxTPoAG+peT4WUXhoskQg 7IBdeeNfis55Bmn/6T0aXwDmQM1uPeYgDlHWrfasGaQLxg7dUA538xt7zEO5cU7ycCl6 MWz2eV6TyBGkWmhzL1ojRvi4bWyC7YmgOB9dZco7RQvQ8lf+p+zSxP9Qr8Ql2KwCMdcQ 3HU3K3S3JobN/vJMZMmFpBstwD0idO8nNxC2NlBzin6nKWOzFvfHibDRPtIqturvW5l3 KKmA1JsN4DRCGOCVdQwUZWnA4ivmlrA/iAYrplWkdeGotFmKgrvYSVSDCwDtSi8kXxiw YPlQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.150.135 with SMTP id y129mr19535401vkd.156.1450882473109; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:54:33 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.31.182.211 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 06:54:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20151216041827.16193.95293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 09:54:33 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: KON0605T9Zx5ljJdclT_18AaHlg Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Songhaibin (A)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org" , IESG , p2psip Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:54:35 -0000 > Yes. That's the problem. But I can still contact with Hewen. Do we > need an oral agreement or the written agreement from him? If it is > just an oral agreement. I can do it quickly and change the disclaimer > when we revise the draft. > > Best Regards! > -Haibin It would be good to have email on record (a post to the mailing list), just in case, but oral will work -- you could post a note about what he said to you by telephone or in person. Barry From nobody Sun Dec 27 22:13:39 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2091A893C for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:13:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zAVe0ErQztll for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:13:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4ED51A893B for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:13:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CGA88491; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 06:13:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML702-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.99) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 06:13:29 +0000 Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 06:13:29 +0000 Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.252]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:13:18 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: Zhenghewen Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHRN7jZcW5g6EknVEW+vQa5IqGiDp7NhcIAgAANJoCACrffAP//41WAgAfOQHA= Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 06:13:18 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.5680D30C.0035, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.252, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: b52e3789e4cb428f1ff95df1a5e09cb7 Archived-At: Cc: Barry Leiba , "p2psip@ietf.org" Subject: [P2PSIP] FW: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 06:13:38 -0000 SGkgSGV3ZW4sDQoNCkFzIHlvdSB3ZXJlIGFuIGF1dGhvciBvZiB0aGUgZWFybHkgaW5kaXZpZHVh bCB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkcmFmdCBpbmRpY2F0ZWQgYnkgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QsIHdlIG5lZWQg eW91ciBhcHByb3ZhbCB0byBjaGFuZ2UgdGhlIElFVEYgVHJ1c3QgcG9saWN5IG9mIHRoZSBkcmFm dCBmcm9tICJQcmU1Mzc4IiB0byB0aGUgbW9zdCB1cGRhdGVkIHZlcnNpb24uIFlvdSBjYW4gZmlu ZCB0aGUgY3VycmVudCBhY3RpdmUgdmVyc2lvbnMgb2YgVHJ1c3QgTGVnYWwgUHJvdmlzaW9ucyAo VExQKSBhdDogDQoNCmh0dHA6Ly90cnVzdGVlLmlldGYub3JnL3RydXN0LWxlZ2FsLXByb3Zpc2lv bnMuaHRtbA0KDQpQbGVhc2UgcmVzcG9uZCB0byB0aGlzIHRocmVhZC4gVGhhbmsgeW91IHZlcnkg bXVjaC4NCg0KLUhhaWJpbiBTb25nDQoNCg0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0K PiBGcm9tOiBiYXJyeWxlaWJhQGdtYWlsLmNvbSBbbWFpbHRvOmJhcnJ5bGVpYmFAZ21haWwuY29t XSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YNCj4gQmFycnkgTGVpYmENCj4gU2VudDogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJl ciAyMywgMjAxNSAxMDo1NSBQTQ0KPiBUbzogU29uZ2hhaWJpbiAoQSkNCj4gQ2M6IEFsaXNzYSBD b29wZXI7IHAycHNpcC1jaGFpcnNAaWV0Zi5vcmc7DQo+IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcDJwc2lwLWRpYWdu b3N0aWNzQGlldGYub3JnOyBJRVNHOyBwMnBzaXANCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtQMlBTSVBdIEJh cnJ5IExlaWJhJ3MgRGlzY3VzcyBvbiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXAycHNpcC1kaWFnbm9zdGljcy0xOToN Cj4gKHdpdGggRElTQ1VTUyBhbmQgQ09NTUVOVCkNCj4gDQo+ID4gWWVzLiBUaGF0J3MgdGhlIHBy b2JsZW0uIEJ1dCBJIGNhbiBzdGlsbCBjb250YWN0IHdpdGggSGV3ZW4uIERvIHdlDQo+ID4gbmVl ZCBhbiBvcmFsIGFncmVlbWVudCBvciB0aGUgd3JpdHRlbiBhZ3JlZW1lbnQgZnJvbSBoaW0/IElm IGl0IGlzDQo+ID4ganVzdCBhbiBvcmFsIGFncmVlbWVudC4gSSBjYW4gZG8gaXQgcXVpY2tseSBh bmQgY2hhbmdlIHRoZSBkaXNjbGFpbWVyDQo+ID4gd2hlbiB3ZSByZXZpc2UgdGhlIGRyYWZ0Lg0K PiA+DQo+ID4gQmVzdCBSZWdhcmRzIQ0KPiA+IC1IYWliaW4NCj4gDQo+IEl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGdv b2QgdG8gaGF2ZSBlbWFpbCBvbiByZWNvcmQgKGEgcG9zdCB0byB0aGUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0KSwg anVzdCBpbiBjYXNlLA0KPiBidXQgb3JhbCB3aWxsIHdvcmsgLS0geW91IGNvdWxkIHBvc3QgYSBu b3RlIGFib3V0IHdoYXQgaGUgc2FpZCB0byB5b3UgYnkNCj4gdGVsZXBob25lIG9yIGluIHBlcnNv bi4NCj4gDQo+IEJhcnJ5DQo= From nobody Mon Dec 28 18:11:28 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 078C41ACEB7 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:11:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gMqutZZXOHGW for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vk0-x22c.google.com (mail-vk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F20ED1ACEBA for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:11:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id f2so147481777vkb.3 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:11:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=QWvAh+eOWRdpqnXuVy6Q5tugpHsGqimFWF5nkKFlCbo=; b=f0EwSiPKDoqxUdEmPN0jCi9KuqsQ/m5gD2X9v9AREe10O+sJih6uF19OYmqUiyc1Cw ghqsYz0GL/TD4apeQHb7RDGoEVs+ACcFeG6ExSDAZX+KwXb4DaLtuggh3qqYSVKYsY/D RcTCe2120IUbNOKF3qg4z7RJQFS9LpV0rrGiuXR4cEIc8MmAIy26lP4aKrCgJ3zTX5h2 wti9ZC0MSmU0GJ1QNvLa2NNnWjI+xAVIuThaq8jOANXt7EyeOAGrtskkZvhh5IpuvfDj /CHEd/0+Yp/XN+XGjrdQvy4O6ZuAR1VDfHBhxPtopnGB5gk6LqifcAxPbFt19hz4t8ww +OCA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.140.209 with SMTP id o200mr15871531vkd.156.1451355085086; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:11:25 -0800 (PST) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.31.182.211 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:11:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1BB0F946957387408774AA03CD21AA52A406EB4B@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <1BB0F946957387408774AA03CD21AA52A406EB4B@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:11:24 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dJ7dfIv5exsl2teK6Ux3wVnOErk Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Zhenghewen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: "p2psip@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgQmFycnkgTGVpYmEncyBEaXNjdXNzIG9u?= =?utf-8?q?_draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMEN?= =?utf-8?q?T=29?= X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 02:11:27 -0000 On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Zhenghewen wrote: > It's OK to change from Pre5378 to the most updated version. Thanks, Hewen! Barry From nobody Wed Dec 30 01:18:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 430D31A1B6A; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 01:18:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rj8cMLTKYZ5W; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 01:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57AB81A1B69; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 01:18:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CGD90554; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:18:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:18:09 +0000 Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.252]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:18:01 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: Barry Leiba , The IESG Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHRN7jZcW5g6EknVEW+vQa5IqGiDp7jReww Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:18:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151216041827.16193.95293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20151216041827.16193.95293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090204.5683A153.0021, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.252, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 27ef7e6dff8ec0cfd0f8b69d31f84b64 Archived-At: Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org" , "p2psip@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:18:17 -0000 Dear Barry, See my reply in line. > -----Original Message----- > From: P2PSIP [mailto:p2psip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:18 PM > To: The IESG > Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org; > p2psip@ietf.org > Subject: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-= 19: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >=20 > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: Discuss >=20 > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all ema= il > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introdu= ctory > paragraph, however.) >=20 >=20 > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >=20 >=20 > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > For Sections 9.1 and 9.2, I would like to see some evidence of discussion= that > resulted in the decision to make the registry policies Standards Action. = Did > the working group actually discuss this and make a decision that Standard= s > Action is right? What's the reasoning for not using some softer policy, = such as > "IETF Review" (which might allow for registrations from Experimental > documents) or Specification Required (which would allow review by a > designated expert of a non-RFC specification)? Why is Standards Action t= he > right thing? >=20 The thought was that if a new value would be used for experimental purpose,= then there are reserved values accordingly for overlay local use. And then= if people want that value can be used across different RELOAD overlays, th= en they'd better need a standard track document to define it (that's why we= assume it would be standard track). "Specification Required" allows non-RF= C specifications, not sure that would reflect the IETF consensus (certain c= oncerns might exist about certain kinds of diagnostic information).=20 > Important note on the previous comment: Please don't just change this: > talk with me. I'm actually asking a question, and it might well be that > Standards Action is right. I want to hear the answer and have a discussi= on > about it. >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > In addition to what Ben has already said... >=20 > >From the shepherd writeup: >=20 > "The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed > for several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with > nothing special worth noting." >=20 > Is it really the case that with *several years* of discussion there's > *nothing* worth pointing out as something that generated discussion? > What were those several years spent on? >=20 > "A review of Section 9.6 was requested to the APPS area and the authors > considered the received feedback." >=20 > Similarly: was there nothing about the feedback that was worth mentioning= ? > I'm glad the authors considered it... it would have been good to say "the > feedback was only on minor points," or to say what review brought up. >=20 > "The idnits tool returns 5 warnings and 1 comment. They do not seem to be= a > problem." >=20 > Well, one of the things that idnits calls out is this: > -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6940, but t= he > abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. >=20 > I believe it's not a problem that the abstract doesn't mention it, but on= e > *reason* the abstract doesn't mention it is that the rest of the document > doesn't mention it either. It's not at all clear WHY this document updat= es > 6940, and that *is* a problem. Why? (This is in support of Ben's commen= t, > as well as being a question to the shepherd.) The document says it extends one RFC 6940 message and defines one new RELOA= D message. I'm not clear whether it is an update or not. > The idnits tool also mentions the pre-5378 disclaimer, and the shepherd > writeup has no information about why the disclaimer is needed. What text= is > in this document that is not subject to the IETF Trust terms from BCP 78,= and > why is it not? I think this needs an explanation. This has been resolved in another thread. > I strongly agree with Ben's comment about needing explanations for a numb= er > of SHOULDs (and SHOULD NOTs) in the document. RFC 2119 says that for > SHOULD, "the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed > before choosing a different course." Without any explanation, there's no= way > for implementors to understand the implications and to weigh anything, an= d I > tripped over that quite a number of times during my review. It has been replied in another thread w.r.t. Ben's comments. And I agree th= at after carefully consideration, it's better to change them to "MUST"s. >=20 > I agree with Spencer's comment that we don't usually strong-arm IANA with > 2119 key words. It's a small point, and I don't think IANA are easily of= fended > [ :-) ], but "IANA is asked to create" is a better approach than "IANA SH= ALL > create", and so on. We will revise the section and be carefully with those words in IANA sectio= n in future documents:) BR, -Haibin Song >=20 > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > P2PSIP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip From nobody Wed Dec 30 01:18:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF041A1B69; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 01:18:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Wfnplr2cGDb; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 01:18:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 671BE1A1B6C; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 01:18:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CGD90582; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:18:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:18:25 +0000 Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.252]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:18:18 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: Barry Leiba , The IESG Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thread-Index: AdFC4wSXcW5g6EknVEW+vQa5IqGiDg== X-CallingTelephoneNumber: IPM.Note X-VoiceMessageDuration: 1 X-FaxNumberOfPages: 0 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:18:17 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090202.5683A162.004F, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.252, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 7d8ba152be298c96904392b25a3126ae Archived-At: Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org" , "p2psip@ietf.org" Subject: [P2PSIP] Recall: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:18:34 -0000 Songhaibin (A) would like to recall the message, "[P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Di= scuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)".= From nobody Wed Dec 30 01:20:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BD01A1B82; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 01:20:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FZ0SVOJTFnY2; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 01:20:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 072B31A1B7F; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 01:20:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CGD90798; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:20:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:20:30 +0000 Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.252]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:20:28 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: Barry Leiba , The IESG Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHRN7jZcW5g6EknVEW+vQa5IqGiDp7jReww Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:20:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151216041827.16193.95293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20151216041827.16193.95293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090203.5683A1DF.00A8, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.252, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 27ef7e6dff8ec0cfd0f8b69d31f84b64 Archived-At: Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org" , "p2psip@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:20:44 -0000 Dear Barry, See my reply in line. And copy Roni's new email address (as the author's em= ail address has been updated). > -----Original Message----- > From: P2PSIP [mailto:p2psip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba > Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 12:18 PM > To: The IESG > Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org; > p2psip@ietf.org > Subject: [P2PSIP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-= 19: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >=20 > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: Discuss >=20 > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all ema= il > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introdu= ctory > paragraph, however.) >=20 >=20 > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >=20 >=20 > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > For Sections 9.1 and 9.2, I would like to see some evidence of discussion= that > resulted in the decision to make the registry policies Standards Action. = Did > the working group actually discuss this and make a decision that Standard= s > Action is right? What's the reasoning for not using some softer policy, = such as > "IETF Review" (which might allow for registrations from Experimental > documents) or Specification Required (which would allow review by a > designated expert of a non-RFC specification)? Why is Standards Action t= he > right thing? >=20 The thought was that if a new value would be used for experimental purpose,= then there are reserved values accordingly for overlay local use (0xF000-0= xFFFE). And then if people want that value can be used across different REL= OAD overlays, then they'd better need a standard track document to define i= t (that's why we assume it would be standard track). "Specification Require= d" allows non-RFC specifications, not sure that would reflect the IETF cons= ensus (certain concerns might exist about certain kinds of diagnostic infor= mation).=20 > Important note on the previous comment: Please don't just change this: > talk with me. I'm actually asking a question, and it might well be that > Standards Action is right. I want to hear the answer and have a discussi= on > about it. >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > In addition to what Ben has already said... >=20 > >From the shepherd writeup: >=20 > "The normal WG process was followed and the document has been discussed > for several years. The document as it is now, reflects WG consensus, with > nothing special worth noting." >=20 > Is it really the case that with *several years* of discussion there's > *nothing* worth pointing out as something that generated discussion? > What were those several years spent on? >=20 > "A review of Section 9.6 was requested to the APPS area and the authors > considered the received feedback." >=20 > Similarly: was there nothing about the feedback that was worth mentioning= ? > I'm glad the authors considered it... it would have been good to say "the > feedback was only on minor points," or to say what review brought up. >=20 > "The idnits tool returns 5 warnings and 1 comment. They do not seem to be= a > problem." >=20 > Well, one of the things that idnits calls out is this: > -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6940, but t= he > abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. >=20 > I believe it's not a problem that the abstract doesn't mention it, but on= e > *reason* the abstract doesn't mention it is that the rest of the document > doesn't mention it either. It's not at all clear WHY this document updat= es > 6940, and that *is* a problem. Why? (This is in support of Ben's commen= t, > as well as being a question to the shepherd.) The document says it extends one RFC 6940 message and defines one new RELOA= D message. I'm not clear whether it is an update or not. > The idnits tool also mentions the pre-5378 disclaimer, and the shepherd > writeup has no information about why the disclaimer is needed. What text= is > in this document that is not subject to the IETF Trust terms from BCP 78,= and > why is it not? I think this needs an explanation. This has been resolved in another thread. > I strongly agree with Ben's comment about needing explanations for a numb= er > of SHOULDs (and SHOULD NOTs) in the document. RFC 2119 says that for > SHOULD, "the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed > before choosing a different course." Without any explanation, there's no= way > for implementors to understand the implications and to weigh anything, an= d I > tripped over that quite a number of times during my review. It has been replied in another thread w.r.t. Ben's comments. And I agree th= at after carefully consideration, it's better to change them to "MUST"s. >=20 > I agree with Spencer's comment that we don't usually strong-arm IANA with > 2119 key words. It's a small point, and I don't think IANA are easily of= fended > [ :-) ], but "IANA is asked to create" is a better approach than "IANA SH= ALL > create", and so on. We will revise the section and be carefully with those words in IANA sectio= n in future documents:) BR, -Haibin Song >=20 > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > P2PSIP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip From nobody Wed Dec 30 19:05:53 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054BB1A1BA9; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:05:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aMHfXS2B2oJL; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:05:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07F251A1BA3; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:05:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CCH48340; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:05:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML701-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.93) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:05:43 +0000 Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:05:43 +0000 Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.252]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:05:37 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: Joel Jaeggli , The IESG Thread-Topic: Joel Jaeggli's Abstain on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHRN9RPCAJOs8SfcUCBC7c4ZExXbp7kahdw Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:05:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151216073506.5692.45759.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20151216073506.5692.45759.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.56849B8B.002D, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.252, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 61c351946e24dd02350ac0a43cbcb67d Archived-At: Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org" , "p2psip@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Joel Jaeggli's Abstain on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:05:53 -0000 RGVhciBKb2VsLA0KDQpQbGVhc2Ugc2VlIG15IHJlcGx5IGluIGxpbmUuDQoNCj4gLS0tLS1Pcmln aW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogSm9lbCBKYWVnZ2xpIFttYWlsdG86am9lbGphQGJv Z3VzLmNvbV0NCj4gU2VudDogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBEZWNlbWJlciAxNiwgMjAxNSAzOjM1IFBNDQo+ IFRvOiBUaGUgSUVTRw0KPiBDYzogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wMnBzaXAtZGlhZ25vc3RpY3NAaWV0Zi5v cmc7IHAycHNpcC1jaGFpcnNAaWV0Zi5vcmc7DQo+IGNqYmNAaXQudWMzbS5lczsgcDJwc2lwQGll dGYub3JnDQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IEpvZWwgSmFlZ2dsaSdzIEFic3RhaW4gb24gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1w MnBzaXAtZGlhZ25vc3RpY3MtMTk6ICh3aXRoDQo+IENPTU1FTlQpDQo+IA0KPiBKb2VsIEphZWdn bGkgaGFzIGVudGVyZWQgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBiYWxsb3QgcG9zaXRpb24gZm9yDQo+IGRyYWZ0 LWlldGYtcDJwc2lwLWRpYWdub3N0aWNzLTE5OiBBYnN0YWluDQo+IA0KPiBXaGVuIHJlc3BvbmRp bmcsIHBsZWFzZSBrZWVwIHRoZSBzdWJqZWN0IGxpbmUgaW50YWN0IGFuZCByZXBseSB0byBhbGwg ZW1haWwNCj4gYWRkcmVzc2VzIGluY2x1ZGVkIGluIHRoZSBUbyBhbmQgQ0MgbGluZXMuIChGZWVs IGZyZWUgdG8gY3V0IHRoaXMgaW50cm9kdWN0b3J5DQo+IHBhcmFncmFwaCwgaG93ZXZlci4pDQo+ IA0KPiANCj4gUGxlYXNlIHJlZmVyIHRvIGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2llc2cvc3RhdGVt ZW50L2Rpc2N1c3MtY3JpdGVyaWEuaHRtbA0KPiBmb3IgbW9yZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhYm91dCBJ RVNHIERJU0NVU1MgYW5kIENPTU1FTlQgcG9zaXRpb25zLg0KPiANCj4gDQo+IFRoZSBkb2N1bWVu dCwgYWxvbmcgd2l0aCBvdGhlciBiYWxsb3QgcG9zaXRpb25zLCBjYW4gYmUgZm91bmQgaGVyZToN Cj4gaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wMnBzaXAtZGlh Z25vc3RpY3MvDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NCj4gQ09NTUVOVDoNCj4gLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPiANCj4gTWhlbWVudCBFcnN1ZSBkaWQgdGhlIG9wc2RpciByZXZpZXcsDQoN ClRoYW5rcy4NCg0KPiANCj4gV2hpbGUgSSB3b3VsZCBub3QgcHJldmVudCB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50 IG9uIGEgdGVjaG5pY2FsIGJhc2lzIEkgd291bGQgaG9wZSB2ZXJ5DQo+IHN0cm9uZ2x5IHRoYXQg aW4gYWRkcmVzc2luZyB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2VzIHRoYXQgZnVydGhlciByZWZpbmVtZW50IGNhbiBp bXByb3ZlDQo+IHRoZSBwcm9wb3NlZCBzdGFuZGFyZC4uLiB3aGVyZSB0aGF0IGRvbmUgSSdkIGJl IGhhcHB5IHRvIGJhbGxvdCBubyBvYmplY3Rpb24uDQo+IA0KPiAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KPiANCj4g IHJldmlld2VkIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCAiUDJQIE92ZXJsYXkgRGlhZ25vc3RpY3MiDQo+IChkcmFm dC1pZXRmLXAycHNpcC1kaWFnbm9zdGljcy0xOS50eHQpIGFzIHBhcnQgb2YgdGhlIE9wZXJhdGlv bmFsIGRpcmVjdG9yYXRlJ3MNCj4gb25nb2luZyBlZmZvcnQgdG8gcmV2aWV3IGFsbCBJRVRGIGRv Y3VtZW50cyBiZWluZyBwcm9jZXNzZWQgYnkgdGhlIElFU0cuDQo+IFRoZXNlIGNvbW1lbnRzIHdl cmUgd3JpdHRlbiBwcmltYXJpbHkgZm9yIHRoZSBiZW5lZml0IG9mIHRoZSBvcGVyYXRpb25hbCBh cmVhDQo+IGRpcmVjdG9ycy4gIERvY3VtZW50IGVkaXRvcnMgYW5kIFdHIGNoYWlycyBzaG91bGQg dHJlYXQgdGhlc2UgY29tbWVudHMNCj4ganVzdCBsaWtlIGFueSBvdGhlciBsYXN0IGNhbGwgY29t bWVudHMuDQo+IA0KPiBJbnRlbmRlZCBzdGF0dXM6IFN0YW5kYXJkcyBUcmFjaw0KPiBVcGRhdGVz OiA2OTQwIChpZiBhcHByb3ZlZCkNCj4gQ3VycmVudCBJRVNHIHN0YXRlOiBJbiBMYXN0IENhbGwg KGVuZHMgMjAxNS0xMi0xNCkgSUFOQSBSZXZpZXcgU3RhdGU6IElBTkEgLQ0KPiBOb3QgT0sgKHNl ZSBmb3IgSUFOQSBjb21tZW50cyBhdDoNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9k b2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wMnBzaXAtZGlhZ25vc3RpY3MvaGlzdG9yeS8pDQo+IA0KPiBTdW1tYXJ5 OiBUaGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgZGVzY3JpYmVzIG1lY2hhbmlzbXMgZm9yIFAyUCBvdmVybGF5IGRpYWdu b3N0aWNzLg0KPiBJdCBkZWZpbmVzIGV4dGVuc2lvbnMgdG8gdGhlIFJFTE9BRCBQMlBTSVAgYmFz ZSBwcm90b2NvbCB0byBjb2xsZWN0IGRpYWdub3N0aWMNCj4gaW5mb3JtYXRpb24sIGFuZCBkZXRh aWxzIHRoZSBwcm90b2NvbCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9ucyBmb3IgdGhlc2UgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucy4NCj4g DQo+IENvbW1lbnRzOg0KPiAtIFRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBpcyBub3QgZWFzeSB0byByZWFkIGFuZCB0 aGUgY2xhcml0eSBjb3VsZCBiZSBpbXByb3ZlZC4NCg0KSWYgaXQgY2FuIGJlIG1vcmUgc3BlY2lm aWMsIHRoZW4gaXQgd2lsbCBiZSBtb3JlIGhlbHBmdWwuDQoNCj4gLSBJdCBpcyBjb21tb24gcHJh Y3RpY2UgYW5kIHJ1bGUgdG8gbWVudGlvbiBpbiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgYWJzdHJhY3QgdGhlIFJG Qw0KPiB3aGljaCBpcyBnb2luZyB0byBiZSB1cGRhdGVkLg0KDQpUaGlzIHdpbGwgYmUgcmVzb2x2 ZWQgaW4gYW5vdGhlciBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIHRocmVhZCB0aGF0IHdoZXRoZXIgaXQgdXBkYXRlcyBS RkM2OTQwLg0KDQo+IC0gVGhlcmUgYXJlIG1hbnkgb2NjdXJyZW5jZXMgb2YgdGhlIHdvcmQg4oCc c2hvdWxk4oCdLiBBcmUgdGhlc2UgbWVhbnQgdG8gYmUNCj4gbm9ybWF0aXZlIGxhbmd1YWdlIGFu ZCDigJxTSE9VTETigJ0/DQoNCk5vLCAic2hvdWxkInMgYXJlIG5vdCBub3JtYXRpdmUgbGFuZ3Vh Z2UgaW4gdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudC4NCg0KPiANCj4gLSBUaGVyZSBhcmUgZGlmZmVyZW50IHRlcm1z IHVzZWQgaW4gdGhlIGZpcnN0IGZldyBzZWN0aW9ucywgd2hpY2ggYXJlIG5vdA0KPiBpbnRyb2R1 Y2VkIHByb3Blcmx5LiBPbmUgc3Vic3RhbnRpYWwgdGVybSB0aGUgcmVhZGVyIGlzIHN1cnByaXNl ZCB3aXRoIGlzDQo+ICJkaWFnbm9zdGljIGtpbmQgdHlwZSIuDQoNCkl0IGlzIGEgbGFuZ3VhZ2Ug cHJvYmxlbSwgImRpYWdub3N0aWMgS2luZCIgaXMgbW9yZSBjbGVhciB0aGFuICJkaWFnbm9zdGlj IGtpbmQgdHlwZSIuIEkgY2FuIHJldmlzZSB0aGF0Lg0KDQo+IC0gSSBiZWxpZXZlIHRoZSBiYXNp YyB0ZXJtcyB1c2VkIGluIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGVmaW5lZCBpbiBhDQo+IFRl cm1pbm9sb2d5IHNlY3Rpb24gaWYgbm90IGRlZmluZWQgaW4gUkZDIDY5NDAuIFRoZSBUZXJtaW5v bG9neSBzZWN0aW9uIHNob3VsZA0KPiBtZW50aW9uIHRoYXQgdGhlIHRlcm1pbm9sb2d5IGZyb20g UkZDIDY5NDAgaXMgdXNlZC4NCj4gLSBUaGUgdGVybSAiS2luZCIgaGFzIGJlZW4gZGVmaW5lZCBp biBSRkMgNjk0MC4gSWYgdGhlIHRlcm0gImtpbmQiIGlzIHRvIGJlIHVzZWQNCj4gYXMgZGVmaW5l ZCBpbiBSRkMgNjk0MCBpdCBzaG91bGQgYmUgdXNlZCB3aXRoIGEgY2FwaXRhbCAiSyIuDQoNCkl0 IGhhcyBhbHJlYWR5IG1lbnRpb25lZCBjb25jZXB0cyBmcm9tIFJGQzY5NDAgYXJlIHVzZWQgaW4g dGhlIHRlcm1pbm9sb2d5IHNlY3Rpb24uIFRoZSBzdWdnZXN0aW9uIHRvIGNoYW5nZSAia2luZCIg dG8gIktpbmQiIGlzIGNvcnJlY3QgYW5kIGFjY2VwdGVkLg0KDQo+IC0gVGhlcmUgYXJlIGRpZmZl cmVudCB2ZXJ5IGxvbmcgc2VudGVuY2VzIGFuZCBhIGZldyA1LXRvLTYtcGFydC1zdWJzdGFudGl2 ZXMNCj4gd2hpY2ggZG9uJ3QgY29udHJpYnV0ZSB0byByZWFkYWJpbGl0eSAoZS5nLjoNCj4g4oCc c2luZ2xlLCBnZW5lcmFsIFAyUFNJUCBvdmVybGF5IGRpYWdub3N0aWMgZnJhbWV3b3Jr4oCdKS4N Cg0KV2hhdCBhYm91dCBjaGFuZ2luZyBpdCB0byAiYSBQMlAgb3ZlcmxheSBkaWFnbm9zdGljIGZy YW1ld29yayAuLi4iPw0KDQo+IC0gQ29uY2VybmluZzogIlRoZSBzZWNvbmQgaXMgYSBuZXcgbWV0 aG9kIGFuZCByZXNwb25zZSwgUGF0aFRyYWNrLCINCj4gSSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIHN1Z2dlc3Qg dG8gZGVsZXRlICJhbmQgcmVzcG9uc2UiIG9yIGNhbGwgaXQgImEgbmV3DQo+IHJlcXVlc3QvcmVz cG9uc2UgbWV0aG9kIi4NCg0KQWNjZXB0Lg0KDQo+IA0KPiBUaGUgaWRuaXRzIHRvb2wgcmV0dXJu cyBvbmUgZXJyb3IgYW5kIG51bWVyb3VzIHdhcm5pbmdzIHdoaWNoIG5lZWQgdG8gYmUgZml4ZWQN Cj4gKDEzIHdhcm5pbmdzLCAyIGNvbW1lbnQgYW5kIDEgZXJyb3IpLg0KPiBTZWUNCj4gaHR0cDov L3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2lkbml0cz91cmw9aHR0cHM6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pZC9kcmFm dC1pZXRmLXAycHNpcC1kaWFnbm8NCj4gc3RpY3MtMTkudHh0DQoNClRoZSB3YXJuaW5ncyBvZiBy ZWZlcmVuY2VzIChUQkQxLi4uVEJEOCkgd2lsbCBiZSByZXNvbHZlZCBhZnRlciB0aG9zZSBudW1i ZXJzIGFyZSBhc3NpZ25lZCBieSBJQU5BLiBBY3R1YWxseSBhbHRob3VnaCB0aGV5IGFyZSBlbWJy YWNlZCBieSBzcXVhcmUgYnJhY2tldHMsIHRoZXkgYXJlIG5vdCByZWZlcmVuY2VzLCBidXQgb25s eSB0aGUgbnVtYmVycyB0byBiZSBkZXRlcm1pbmVkLiBJIGRvIG5vdCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHdoeSB0 aGVyZSBhcmUgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyB0d28gd2FybmluZ3M6DQoiICA9PSBMaW5lIDMzNyBoYXMg d2VpcmQgc3BhY2luZzogJy4uLmlvblR5cGUgIHR5cGU7Li4uJw0KDQogID09IExpbmUgNTMxIGhh cyB3ZWlyZCBzcGFjaW5nOiAnLi4uIG9wYXF1ZSAgZGlhZ24uLi4iDQoNClRoZSBjb21tZW50IGZv ciBkb2N1bWVudCBkYXRlIGlzIGludmFsaWQgbm93IGFzIHdlIHJ1biBpZG5pdHMgdG9vbCB0b2Rh eS4gQW5kIHRoZSBvdGhlciBjb21tZW50IHdpbGwgYmUgcmVzb2x2ZWQgaW4gYW5vdGhlciB0aHJl YWQgb24gd2hldGhlciBpdCB1cGRhdGVzIFJGQzY5NDAuDQpJIHdpbGwgY2hlY2sgd2h5IHRoZXJl IGlzIDEgZXJyb3IgYWJvdXQgdG9vIGxvbmcgbGluZXMgaW4gdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50LCBhbmQgaXQg d2lsbCBiZSBlYXNpbHkgc29sdmVkLg0KDQpUaGFua3MgYWdhaW4sDQoNCi1IYWliaW4gU29uZw0K From nobody Thu Dec 31 00:23:40 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8345A1A8782; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:23:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oTagNXex55GX; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:23:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FB071A21A2; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:23:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CCH68816; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:23:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML705-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.168) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:23:20 +0000 Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:23:20 +0000 Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.252]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:23:13 +0800 From: "Songhaibin (A)" To: Benoit Claise , The IESG Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHROD1Y0QBLPtwxQkSSxlqc3BQev57kgetQ Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:23:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151216200640.15772.16745.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20151216200640.15772.16745.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.136.79.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090202.5684E602.004E, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.252, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: b0812111c5d26e3005b63099e1a9092c Archived-At: Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" , "p2psip@ietf.org" , "Mehmet \(NSN - DE/Munich\)" , "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org" , "Ersue@ietfa.amsl.com" Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:23:35 -0000 Dear Benoit, Please see my reply in line. > -----Original Message----- > From: P2PSIP [mailto:p2psip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 4:07 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: p2psip-chairs@ietf.org; p2psip@ietf.org; Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org; Ersue@ietfa.amsl.com > Subject: [P2PSIP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with COMMENT) >=20 > Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: No Objection >=20 > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all ema= il > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introdu= ctory > paragraph, however.) >=20 >=20 > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >=20 >=20 > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > =09 > I agree with Ben, Joel & Mehmet (OPS DIR), and Barry. >=20 > On top of that, > - This document looks to me as a specific implementation, written in a dr= aft > format. It was to make it clearer to document both the messages and message process= ing after getting some feedback from the p2psip WG.=20 > - While reading the document, I was wondering: Is this P2P specific or P2= PSIP > specific? It is P2P specific. The next revision will eliminate that confusion in tota= l. > Maybe a missed opportunity to have generic OAM principles for P2P, with > RELOAD extension. > - Finally, any connection with LIME, at least on the presentation aspects= . >=20 Maybe there is opportunity in the near future to have OAM for RELOAD with Y= ANG model :) Wish you happy new year, -Haibin Song > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > P2PSIP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip From nobody Thu Dec 31 02:48:51 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietf.org Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163CB1A1BB5; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 02:48:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.11.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151231104849.23384.48804.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 02:48:49 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: p2psip@ietf.org Subject: [P2PSIP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-16.txt X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:48:49 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : A SIP Usage for RELOAD Authors : Cullen Jennings Bruce B. Lowekamp Eric Rescorla Salman A. Baset Henning Schulzrinne Thomas C. Schmidt Filename : draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-16.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2015-12-31 Abstract: This document defines a SIP Usage for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD). The SIP Usage provides the functionality of a SIP proxy or registrar in a fully-distributed system and includes a lookup service for Address of Records (AORs) stored in the overlay. It also defines Globally Routable User Agent Uris (GRUUs) that allow the registrations to map an AOR to a specific node reachable through the overlay. After such initial contact of a peer, the AppAttach method is used to establish a direct connection between nodes through which SIP messages are exchanged. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-sip/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-16 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-16 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/