Subject: [ppsp] 答复: ***SPAM*** 8.316 (5) Re: ppsp Digest, Vol 33, Issue 1

From: "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:16:55 +0800

Hi Chenwei,

Thank you for the comments.

If I remember correctly, the WG had discussed bitmap (buffer map) in IETF 79
and some people regards this as out of scope. The minutes can not be
accessed now. But we can leave this as an open issue. I would like to hear
more comments on this issue.

Yes, requesting peers may request for CHUNK AVAILABILITY together with their
property. Or, it can request for candidate peers and then query their
property. Only when the requesting peer has decided which peers it want to
connect, it sends CHUNK AVAILABILITY message. Peers should have the
flexibility to choose one of the above way to get chunks. So we can add
property query to CHUNK AVAILABILITY as an optional part. I will make the
revision to CHUNK AVAILABILITY method.

Hope to get more feedback from the WG. 

  _____  

Best Regards
Gu Yingjie

发件人: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 chenweiyj
发送时间: 2011年6月22日 乐乐23:11
收件人: ppsp
主题: [ppsp] ***SPAM*** 8.316 (5) Re: ppsp Digest, Vol 33, Issue 1

Yingjie Gu,

         I have some advices about draft-gu-ppsp-peer-protocol-02.

         First, the sentence "The chunk availability is usually presented as
a bitmap, but this is not mandatory.  The format of chunk availability is
not in the scope of peer protocol." in page 7 shows that the format of
bitmap is not in the scope of peer protocol. I think the format of the
bitmap is a must, or a peer in a P2P system can obtain the chunk from the
peers in the other P2P system.

         Second, the method " CHUNK_AVAILABILITY " and "PROPERTY_QUERY " are
two atom methods with different semantics. However, the information of two
methods can be merged into one method to decrease the message between two
peers. So whether creating a new method including the information of the
above two methods as an option is better?

 

Regards！

  _____  

陈炜(Chen Wei)

中国移动通信研究院(Research Institute of China Mobile)

Email：[email-masked]

         [email-masked]

Mobile:+86-139-1166-1894

2011-06-22 

  _____  

发件人： ppsp-request 

发送时间： 2011-06-09  03:01:25 

收件人： ppsp 

抄送： 

主题： ppsp Digest, Vol 33, Issue 1 

If you have received this digest without all the individual message

attachments you will need to update your digest options in your list

subscription.  To do so, go to 

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

Click the 'Unsubscribe or edit options' button, log in, and set "Get

MIME or Plain Text Digests?" to MIME.  You can set this option

globally for all the list digests you receive at this point.

Send ppsp mailing list submissions to

[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at

[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

than "Re: Contents of ppsp digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. New version of Peer protocol, looking forward to your

      comments. (Yingjie Gu(yingjie))

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1

Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:05:52 +0800

From: "Yingjie Gu(yingjie)" <[email-masked]>

To: [email-masked]

Subject: [ppsp] New version of Peer protocol, looking forward to your

comments.

Message-ID: <001501cc2591$5bb44c10$131ce430$@com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi all,

The authors have updated the peer protocol draft. You can find it at 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gu-ppsp-peer-protocol-02.

Any comments are welcome.

Let's have some discussion before meeting. 

Best Regards

Yingjie

-------------- next part --------------

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

URL:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ppsp/attachments/20110608/1e2170d7/att
achment.htm>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________

ppsp mailing list

[email-masked]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

End of ppsp Digest, Vol 33, Issue 1

***********************************

---

From: "zhangyunfei" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:56:37 +0800

Hi Yingjie,
   According to my understanding,the bitmap is a necessary expression of chunk availability information. This is the basic problem of peer protocol. Would like to hear more options on the expression of chunk availability.

BR
Yunfei 

zhangyunfei
2011-06-27

发件人： Yingjie Gu(yingjie)
发送时间： 2011-06-24 13:17:36
收件人： [email-masked]; 'ppsp'
抄送： 
主题： [ppsp] 答复: ***SPAM*** 8.316 (5) Re: ppsp Digest, Vol 33, Issue 1

Hi Chenwei,
Thank you for the comments.
If I remember correctly, the WG had discussed bitmap (buffer map) in IETF 79 and some people regards this as out of scope. The minutes can not be accessed now. But we can leave this as an open issue. I would like to hear more comments on this issue.
Yes, requesting peers may request for CHUNK AVAILABILITY together with their property. Or, it can request for candidate peers and then query their property. Only when the requesting peer has decided which peers it want to connect, it sends CHUNK AVAILABILITY message. Peers should have the flexibility to choose one of the above way to get chunks. So we can add property query to CHUNK AVAILABILITY as an optional part. I will make the revision to CHUNK AVAILABILITY method.

Best Regards
Gu Yingjie

Yingjie Gu,
    
         I have some advices about draft-gu-ppsp-peer-protocol-02.
         First, the sentence "The chunk availability is usually presented as a bitmap, but this is not mandatory.  The format of chunk availability is not in the scope of peer protocol." in page 7 shows that the format of bitmap is not in the scope of peer protocol. I think the format of the bitmap is a must, or a peer in a P2P system can obtain the chunk from the peers in the other P2P system.
         Second, the method " CHUNK_AVAILABILITY " and "PROPERTY_QUERY " are two atom methods with different semantics. However, the information of two methods can be merged into one method to decrease the message between two peers. So whether creating a new method including the information of the above two methods as an option is better?

 
Regards！

陈炜(Chen Wei)

发件人： ppsp-request 
 
Best Regards
Yingjie
 
-------------- next part --------------
URL: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ppsp/attachments/20110608/1e2170d7/attachment.htm>