From nobody Fri Sep 19 01:27:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 626431A0015 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 01:27:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.609 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=1.012, RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT=1.449, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 fPdJ29k6snjs for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 01:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bjtu.edu.cn (mail.bjtu.edu.cn [218.249.29.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 889FE1A000C for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 01:27:18 -0700 (PDT) X-EYOU-SPAMVALUE: 0 X-EMDG-ORIGINAL-FROM: X-EMDG-ORIGINAL-TO: X-EMDG-ORIGINAL-IP: 211.71.74.136 X-EMDG-VER: 4.1.0 Received: (eyou anti_spam gateway 4.1.0); Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:19:57 +0800 Message-ID: <611114797.22849@bjtu.edu.cn> X-EMDG-SMTPAUTH: fsong@bjtu.edu.cn Received: from 211.71.74.136 by 218.249.29.198 with SMTP; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:19:57 +0800 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:27:16 +0800 From: "Fei Song" To: "ppsp@ietf.org" X-Priority: 3 X-Has-Attach: no X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.91[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2014091916271557842515@bjtu.edu.cn> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart557228326307_=----" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/WUSGBE4ljEgB37hJHDBlNaoALF0 Subject: [ppsp] Comments for base tracker protocol and extended tracker protocol X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: fsong List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:27:22 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart557228326307_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgYWxsLA0KIA0KSSBoYXZlIHJlYWQgdGhlIGJhc2UgdHJhY2tlciBwcm90b2NvbCB0b2dldGhl ciB3aXRoIGV4dGVuZGVkIHRyYWNrZXIgcHJvdG9jb2wgYW5kIHdhbnQgdG8gc2hhcmUgc29tZSBj b21tZW50czoNCiANCjEuICAgICAgICAgU2VjdGlvbiAzLjEsIExhc3Qgc2VudGVuY2U6IKGwVGhp cyBjYXNlIHJlcXVpcmVzIGEgbWVzc2FnZSB0byBwcm92aWRlIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIG5vdGlm eSB0aGUgdHJhY2tlciB0aGF0IGEgcGVlciBoYXMgbGVmdCB0aGlzIHRyYWNrZXIuobEgaXQgbWln aHQgYmUgYmV0dGVyIGlmIGp1c3QgZGVsZXRlIHRoZSChsHRoaXMgdHJhY2tlcqGxIGF0IHRoZSBl bmQgb2Ygc2VudGVuY2UgdG8gYXZvaWQgZHVwbGljYXRlIHdvcmRzLg0KMi4gICAgICAgICBTZWN0 aW9uIDQuMiwgTGFzdCBvbmU6IKGwSW4gc3VjaCBhIGNhc2UsIHRoZSBESVNDT05ORUNUIFJlcXVl c3QgbWVzc2FnZSB3aWxsIGhhdmUgdGhlIHNhbWUgZWZmZWN0IG9mIHRpbWVyIGV4cGlyaW5nIChT VEFUX1JFUE9SVCksIGJ1dCBwcm92aWRpbmcgYSBncmFjZWZ1bCBkaXNjb25uZWN0IG9mIHRoYXQg cGVlciBmcm9tIHRoZSBzeXN0ZW0uobEgSSB0aGluayChsGEgZ3JhY2VmdWwgZGlzY29ubmVjdGlv bqGxIGlzIG1vcmUgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUuDQozLiAgICAgICAgIFNlY3Rpb24gNS40LCBJdCBtaWdo dCBiZSBjbGVhcmVyIGlmIHR3byBjYXRhbG9ncyBhcmUgZ2l2ZW4gaW4gdGhpcyB3YXk6DQoNCigx KSAgICAgUGVlciAod2l0aCBiYXNlIHByb3RvY29sKSB2cyBUcmFja2VyICh3aXRoIGV4dGVuZGVk IHByb3RvY29sKQ0KKDIpICAgICBQZWVyICh3aXRoIGV4dGVuZGVkIHByb3RvY29sKSB2cyBUcmFj a2VyICh3aXRoIGJhc2UgcHJvdG9jb2wpDQogDQpObyBtYXR0ZXIgd2hpY2ggc2l0dWF0aW9uIHRo ZSBwZWVyIGFuZCB0cmFja2VyIGJlbG9uZyB0bywgdGhlIGNvbXBhdGliaWxpdHkgaXNzdWUgY291 bGQgYmUgZm91bmQgYXQgdGhlIGhhbmRzaGFrZSBzdGF0ZSAodmlhIHZlcnNpb24gbnVtYmVyIGF0 IGhlYWRlciBmaWVsZCBtYXliZT8pLiBUaGVuIHRoZSChsFVua25vd24gTWVzc2FnZXOhsSB3aWxs IGJlIGFibGUgdG8gZG8gdGhlIKGwZG91YmxlIGNoZWNrobEgZm9yIGNvbXBhdGliaWxpdHkuDQoN Cg0KDQoNCg0KRmVpIFNvbmc= ------=_001_NextPart557228326307_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

I have read the base tracker protocol together with extende= d=20 tracker protocol and want to share some comments:

1. = =20 Section 3.1, = Last=20 sentence: =A1=B0This case requires a message to provide the ability to not= ify the=20 tracker that a peer has left this tracker.=A1=B1 it might be better if jus= t delete=20 the =A1=B0this tracker=A1=B1 at the end of sentence to avoid duplicate=20 words.

2. = =20 Section 4.2, = Last one:=20 =A1=B0In such a case, the DISCONNECT Request message will have the same ef= fect of=20 timer expiring (STAT_REPORT), but providing a graceful disconnect of that = peer=20 from the system.=A1=B1 I think =A1=B0a graceful disconnection=A1=B1 is mor= e=20 appropriate.

3. = =20 Section 5.4, = It might=20 be clearer if two catalogs are given in this way:

(1) =20 Peer (with ba= se=20 protocol) vs Tracker (with extended protocol)

(2) =20 Peer (with ex= tended=20 protocol) vs Tracker (with base protocol)

No matter which situation the peer and tracker belong to, t= he=20 compatibility issue could be found at the handshake state (via version num= ber at=20 header field maybe?). Then the =A1=B0Unknown Messages=A1=B1 will be able t= o do the =A1=B0double=20 check=A1=B1 for compatibility.

Fei Song

------=_001_NextPart557228326307_=------ From nobody Fri Sep 19 02:38:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 345971A0063 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 02:38:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.852 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.652, 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 R9DuhZMsyppV for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 02:38:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 B35361A0062 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 02:38:21 -0700 (PDT) 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 BMT99115; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:38:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:38:18 +0100 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.21]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:38:14 +0800 From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" To: fsong , "ppsp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ppsp] Comments for base tracker protocol and extended tracker protocol Thread-Index: AQHP0+OOhcznp8HFRkeISxTCCj97PJwILWIg Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:38:13 +0000 Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86238340@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <2014091916271557842515@bjtu.edu.cn> In-Reply-To: <2014091916271557842515@bjtu.edu.cn> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.144] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86238340nkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/Gt6oJYvS0bRBIzFwIDChZ1_OXL8 Subject: Re: [ppsp] Comments for base tracker protocol and extended tracker protocol X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 09:38:25 -0000 --_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86238340nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Fei Thanks for those comments. Please see inline marked with [Rachel]. BR, Rachel From: ppsp [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fei Song Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 4:27 PM To: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] Comments for base tracker protocol and extended tracker pro= tocol Hi all, I have read the base tracker protocol together with extended tracker protoc= ol and want to share some comments: 1. Section 3.1, Last sentence: "This case requires a message to provi= de the ability to notify the tracker that a peer has left this tracker." it= might be better if just delete the "this tracker" at the end of sentence t= o avoid duplicate words. [Rachel]: Will do. 2. Section 4.2, Last one: "In such a case, the DISCONNECT Request mes= sage will have the same effect of timer expiring (STAT_REPORT), but providi= ng a graceful disconnect of that peer from the system." I think "a graceful= disconnection" is more appropriate. [Rachel]: Good point. 3. Section 5.4, It might be clearer if two catalogs are given in th= is way: (1) Peer (with base protocol) vs Tracker (with extended protocol) (2) Peer (with extended protocol) vs Tracker (with base protocol) [Rachel]: Yes, good suggestion. No matter which situation the peer and tracker belong to, the compatibility= issue could be found at the handshake state (via version number at header = field maybe?). [Rachel]: Currently, it can't since extended tracker protocol shares the sa= me version number of base tracker protocol. That is because we don't think = extended tracker protocol is a new version of tracker protocol comparing to= base protocol. Instead, it's more like an extension of base protocol since= it only extends some elements. And current tracker protocol has no handsha= ke state for the sake of efficiency. Then the "Unknown Messages" will be able to do the "double check" for compa= tibility. ________________________________ Fei Song --_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86238340nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi F= ei

Thanks for= those comments. Please see inline marked with [Rachel].<= /p>

BR,

Rachel

From: ppsp [mail= to:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fei Song
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 4:27 PM
To: ppsp@ietf.org
Subject: [ppsp] Comments for base tracker protocol and extended trac= ker protocol

Hi all,

I have read the base tracker protocol together with extended = tracker protocol and want to share some comments:

1.= Sect= ion 3.1, Last sentence: “This case requires a message to provide the = ability to notify the tracker that a peer has left this tracker.” it might be better if just delete the “this = tracker” at the end of sentence to avoid duplicate words.

[Rachel]: Will do.

2.= Sect= ion 4.2, Last one: “In such a case, the DISCONNECT Request messa= ge will have the same effect of timer expiring (STAT_REPORT), but providing a graceful disconnect of that peer from the system.” I think “a graceful disconnection” is more appropriate.

[Rachel]: Good point.<= span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri&quo= t;,"sans-serif";color:#1F497D">

3. Section 5.4, It might be cle= arer if two catalogs are given in this way:

=

(1) Peer (with base protocol) vs= Tracker (with extended protocol)

(2) Peer (with extended protocol= ) vs Tracker (with base protocol)

[Rachel]: Yes, good suggestion.=

No matter which situation the peer and tracker belong to, the= compatibility issue could be found at the handshake state (via version number at header field maybe?). <= o:p>

[Rachel]: Currently, it can’= ;t since extended tracker protocol shares the same version number of base t= racker protocol. That is because we don’t think extended tracker protocol is a new version of tracker protocol comparing to base protocol. = Instead, it’s more like an extension of base protocol since it only e= xtends some elements. And current tracker protocol has no handshake state f= or the sake of efficiency.

Then the “Unk= nown Messages” will be able to do the “double check” for compatibility.

=

=

Fei Song

--_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB86238340nkgeml501mbschi_--