From Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu Mon Jan 16 05:09:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3A021F85D2 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:09:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.164, BAYES_40=-0.185, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l5o8jmTavlAt for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:09:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu (mailer1.neclab.eu [195.37.70.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C9221F85D1 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:09:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6618128000205 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:09:05 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (netlab.nec.de) Received: from mailer1.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cq2GUXwlTSkt for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:09:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from METHONE.office.hd (Methone.office.hd [192.168.24.54]) by mailer1.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D0B728000086 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:09:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from PALLENE.office.hd ([169.254.1.103]) by METHONE.office.hd ([192.168.24.54]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:09:00 +0100 From: Martin Stiemerling To: "ppsp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts Thread-Index: AczUNuUUuPEbDTLMT9KQ/MDodwxcCw== Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:08:59 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.1.135] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:09:07 -0000 Dear all,=20 The authors of draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement have received a number of = comments from the IESG. You can see the comments here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement/ballot/ An important reoccurring question from the members of the IESG is about the= scope of the document and if such a document is still needed. The general = answer, at least in my opinion, is that such document is need as it writes = down the challenges and the environments in which a p2p streaming should op= erate.=20 With respect to the requirements document: This has not yet made it to the = IESG, but we received some comments that the document is rather small. This= is not judging the technical quality.=20 However, our AD recommended merging the problem statement and requirements = documents into a single document, in order to be more comprehensive.=20 Now the question to the WG: Are there any objections to merge the problem statement draft and requireme= nts draft into a single document comprising both? The merged version would also address the comments received for the problem= statement during the IESG review. Please let us know your opinion and comments until January 23rd.=20 Martin martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited | Re= gistered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in = England 2832014=20 From christian.1.schmidt@nsn.com Mon Jan 16 05:25:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7252521F85C2 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:25:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id awscjRgFbmkp for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:25:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0DBA21F85C0 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:25:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q0GDPrbt018070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:25:54 +0100 Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q0GDPrQ4010510; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:25:53 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.24]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:25:45 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:25:40 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts Thread-Index: AczUNuUUuPEbDTLMT9KQ/MDodwxcCwAGylvw References: From: "Schmidt, Christian 1. (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: "ext Martin Stiemerling" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jan 2012 13:25:45.0282 (UTC) FILETIME=[5A365A20:01CCD452] Subject: Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:25:56 -0000 >Now the question to the WG: >Are there any objections to merge the problem statement draft and requirements draft into a single document comprising both? >The merged version would also address the comments received for the problem statement during the IESG review. No problem with merging the two documents. What would be the name: PPSP Problem statement and requirements? /Christian -----Original Message----- From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Martin Stiemerling Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 2:09 PM To: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts Dear all,=20 The authors of draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement have received a number of comments from the IESG. You can see the comments here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement/ballo t/ An important reoccurring question from the members of the IESG is about the scope of the document and if such a document is still needed. The general answer, at least in my opinion, is that such document is need as it writes down the challenges and the environments in which a p2p streaming should operate.=20 With respect to the requirements document: This has not yet made it to the IESG, but we received some comments that the document is rather small. This is not judging the technical quality.=20 However, our AD recommended merging the problem statement and requirements documents into a single document, in order to be more comprehensive.=20 Now the question to the WG: Are there any objections to merge the problem statement draft and requirements draft into a single document comprising both? The merged version would also address the comments received for the problem statement during the IESG review. Please let us know your opinion and comments until January 23rd.=20 Martin martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014=20 _______________________________________________ ppsp mailing list ppsp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp From zongning@huawei.com Mon Jan 16 16:28:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9350C21F86E1 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:28:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xoAmFqG0cw2T for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:28:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C877D21F861E for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:28:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LXX00F5O2NZVI@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ppsp@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:28:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LXX00DTE2NZKK@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for ppsp@ietf.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:28:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGI73300; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:28:22 +0800 Received: from SZXEML421-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.160) by szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:28:18 +0800 Received: from SZXEML504-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.7]) by szxeml421-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.160]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 08:28:15 +0800 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:28:14 +0000 From: ZongNing In-reply-to: X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.128] To: Martin Stiemerling , "ppsp@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts Thread-index: AczUNuUUuPEbDTLMT9KQ/MDodwxcCwAd7UHw X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: Subject: Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:28:49 -0000 I don't have problem with merging these two drafts. -----Original Message----- From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 9:09 PM To: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts Dear all, The authors of draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement have received a number of comments from the IESG. You can see the comments here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement/ballot/ An important reoccurring question from the members of the IESG is about the scope of the document and if such a document is still needed. The general answer, at least in my opinion, is that such document is need as it writes down the challenges and the environments in which a p2p streaming should operate. With respect to the requirements document: This has not yet made it to the IESG, but we received some comments that the document is rather small. This is not judging the technical quality. However, our AD recommended merging the problem statement and requirements documents into a single document, in order to be more comprehensive. Now the question to the WG: Are there any objections to merge the problem statement draft and requirements draft into a single document comprising both? The merged version would also address the comments received for the problem statement during the IESG review. Please let us know your opinion and comments until January 23rd. Martin martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 _______________________________________________ ppsp mailing list ppsp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Mon Jan 16 17:47:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7364621F86DF for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:47:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.694 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.694 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dz2G-p+XKK5f for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:47:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DC021F868C for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:47:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46A9E6B2; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:47:44 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE7EE6AA; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:47:44 +0800 (CST) Received: from cmcc- ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012011709474170-2433 ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:47:41 +0800 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:47:40 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: "Martin Stiemerling" , ppsp References: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2012011709474054689741@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-01-17 09:47:41, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-01-17 09:47:44, Serialize complete at 2012-01-17 09:47:44 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart853716684444_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18650.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--19.033-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--19.033-7.0-31-10;No--19.033-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Subject: Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: zhangyunfei 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: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 01:47:50 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart853716684444_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" W1NwZWFraW5nIGFzIHRoZSBhdXRob3Igb2YgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0gc3RhdGVtZW50IGRyYWZ0XQ0K V2UgaGF2ZSB0YWxrZWQgd2l0aCB0aGUgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQgZHJhZnQgYXV0aG9yIGFib3V0IHRo ZSBtZXJnZXIuIEluIGdlbmVyYWwsIHdlIGFyZSBmaW5lIGFib3V0IHRoZSBtZXJnZXIgaWYgdGhp cyBtZXJnZXIgbWFrZXMgSUVTRyBtb3JlIGNsZWFyIGFib3V0IHRoZSBuZWNlc3NpdHkgb2YgdGhl IFBTIGFuZCBtb3ZlcyBmb3J3YXJkIHRoZSBwcm9ncmVzcyBvZiBQUFNQIFdHLg0KV2UnbGwgc3Rh cnQgdGhlIG1lcmdlciBhZnRlciB0aGUgV0cgbWFrZXMgdGhlIGRlY2lzaW9uLlRoYW5rcy4NCg0K QlINCll1bmZlaQ0KDQoNCg0KDQp6aGFuZ3l1bmZlaQ0KDQpGcm9tOiBNYXJ0aW4gU3RpZW1lcmxp bmcNCkRhdGU6IDIwMTItMDEtMTYgMjE6MDgNClRvOiBwcHNwQGlldGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBb cHBzcF0gUHJvYmxlbSBTdGF0ZW1lbnQgYW5kIFJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBEcmFmdHMNCkRlYXIgYWxs LCANCg0KVGhlIGF1dGhvcnMgb2YgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wcHNwLXByb2JsZW0tc3RhdGVtZW50IGhh dmUgcmVjZWl2ZWQgYSBudW1iZXIgb2YgY29tbWVudHMgZnJvbSB0aGUgSUVTRy4gWW91IGNhbiBz ZWUgdGhlIGNvbW1lbnRzIGhlcmU6DQpodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9k cmFmdC1pZXRmLXBwc3AtcHJvYmxlbS1zdGF0ZW1lbnQvYmFsbG90Lw0KDQpBbiBpbXBvcnRhbnQg cmVvY2N1cnJpbmcgcXVlc3Rpb24gZnJvbSB0aGUgbWVtYmVycyBvZiB0aGUgSUVTRyBpcyBhYm91 dCB0aGUgc2NvcGUgb2YgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGFuZCBpZiBzdWNoIGEgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgc3Rp bGwgbmVlZGVkLiBUaGUgZ2VuZXJhbCBhbnN3ZXIsIGF0IGxlYXN0IGluIG15IG9waW5pb24sIGlz IHRoYXQgc3VjaCBkb2N1bWVudCBpcyBuZWVkIGFzIGl0IHdyaXRlcyBkb3duIHRoZSBjaGFsbGVu Z2VzIGFuZCB0aGUgZW52aXJvbm1lbnRzIGluIHdoaWNoIGEgcDJwIHN0cmVhbWluZyBzaG91bGQg b3BlcmF0ZS4gDQoNCldpdGggcmVzcGVjdCB0byB0aGUgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGRvY3VtZW50OiBU aGlzIGhhcyBub3QgeWV0IG1hZGUgaXQgdG8gdGhlIElFU0csIGJ1dCB3ZSByZWNlaXZlZCBzb21l IGNvbW1lbnRzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIHJhdGhlciBzbWFsbC4gVGhpcyBpcyBub3Qg anVkZ2luZyB0aGUgdGVjaG5pY2FsIHF1YWxpdHkuIA0KDQpIb3dldmVyLCBvdXIgQUQgcmVjb21t ZW5kZWQgbWVyZ2luZyB0aGUgcHJvYmxlbSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgYW5kIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyBkb2N1 bWVudHMgaW50byBhIHNpbmdsZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgaW4gb3JkZXIgdG8gYmUgbW9yZSBjb21wcmVo ZW5zaXZlLiANCg0KTm93IHRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgV0c6DQpBcmUgdGhlcmUgYW55IG9i amVjdGlvbnMgdG8gbWVyZ2UgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0gc3RhdGVtZW50IGRyYWZ0IGFuZCByZXF1aXJl bWVudHMgZHJhZnQgaW50byBhIHNpbmdsZSBkb2N1bWVudCBjb21wcmlzaW5nIGJvdGg/DQpUaGUg bWVyZ2VkIHZlcnNpb24gd291bGQgYWxzbyBhZGRyZXNzIHRoZSBjb21tZW50cyByZWNlaXZlZCBm b3IgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0gc3RhdGVtZW50IGR1cmluZyB0aGUgSUVTRyByZXZpZXcuDQoNClBsZWFz ZSBsZXQgdXMga25vdyB5b3VyIG9waW5pb24gYW5kIGNvbW1lbnRzIHVudGlsIEphbnVhcnkgMjNy ZC4gDQoNCiAgTWFydGluDQoNCm1hcnRpbi5zdGllbWVybGluZ0BuZWNsYWIuZXUNCg0KTkVDIExh Ym9yYXRvcmllcyBFdXJvcGUgLSBOZXR3b3JrIFJlc2VhcmNoIERpdmlzaW9uIE5FQyBFdXJvcGUg TGltaXRlZCB8IFJlZ2lzdGVyZWQgT2ZmaWNlOiBORUMgSG91c2UsIDEgVmljdG9yaWEgUm9hZCwg TG9uZG9uIFczIDZCTCB8IFJlZ2lzdGVyZWQgaW4gRW5nbGFuZCAyODMyMDE0IA0KDQoNCl9fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpwcHNwIG1haWxpbmcg bGlzdA0KcHBzcEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5m by9wcHNw ------=_001_NextPart853716684444_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
[Speaking as the author of the problem statement draft]
We have talked with the requirement draft author about the merger. In= =20 general, we are fine about the merger if this merger makes IESG more clear= about=20 the necessity of the PS and moves forward the progress of PPSP WG.
We'll start the merger after the WG makes the decision.Thanks.
 
BR
Yunfei
 
zhangyunfei
 
Date: 2012-01-16 21:08
To: ppsp@ietf.org
Subject: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements=20 Drafts
Dear all, 
 
The authors of draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement = have received a number of comments from = ;the IESG. You can see the comments her= e:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement/ba= llot/
 
An important reoccurring question from the&n= bsp;members of the IESG is about the sc= ope of the document and if such a = document is still needed. The general answer= , at least in my opinion, is that = such document is need as it writes down=  the challenges and the environments in = ;which a p2p streaming should operate. 
 
With respect to the requirements document:&n= bsp;This has not yet made it to the&nbs= p;IESG, but we received some comments that&n= bsp;the document is rather small. This is&nb= sp;not judging the technical quality. 
 
However, our AD recommended merging the = ;problem statement and requirements documents int= o a single document, in order to be&nbs= p;more comprehensive. 
 
Now the question to the WG:
Are there any objections to merge the&n= bsp;problem statement draft and requirements draf= t into a single document comprising both?
The merged version would also address t= he comments received for the problem stateme= nt during the IESG review.
 
Please let us know your opinion and&nbs= p;comments until January 23rd. 
 
  Martin
 
martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu
 
NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research&n= bsp;Division NEC Europe Limited | Registered = ;Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London&= nbsp;W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014&= nbsp;
 
 
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
------=_001_NextPart853716684444_=------ From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Mon Jan 16 17:48:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7715B21F86DF for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:48:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.158 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.158 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EM7LYmJk0CUQ for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:48:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6227221F868C for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:48:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 244CEE6BE; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:48:23 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC3FE6B2; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:48:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from cmcc- ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012011709481988-2455 ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:48:19 +0800 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:48:18 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: =?gb2312?B?U2NobWlkdCwgQ2hyaXN0aWFuIDEuIChOU04gLSBERS9NdW5pY2gp?= , "Martin Stiemerling" , ppsp References: , X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2012011709481868723243@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-01-17 09:48:19, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-01-17 09:48:22, Serialize complete at 2012-01-17 09:48:22 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart240760176833_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18650.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.764-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--10.764-7.0-31-10;No--10.764-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Subject: Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: zhangyunfei 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: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 01:48:25 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart240760176833_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" SSB0aGluayB0aGlzIG5hbWUgaXMgZmluZS4NCg0KQlINCll1bmZlaQ0KDQoNCg0KDQp6aGFuZ3l1 bmZlaQ0KDQpGcm9tOiBTY2htaWR0LCBDaHJpc3RpYW4gMS4gKE5TTiAtIERFL011bmljaCkNCkRh dGU6IDIwMTItMDEtMTYgMjE6MjUNClRvOiBleHQgTWFydGluIFN0aWVtZXJsaW5nOyBwcHNwQGll dGYub3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW3Bwc3BdIFByb2JsZW0gU3RhdGVtZW50IGFuZCBSZXF1aXJl bWVudHMgRHJhZnRzDQo+Tm93IHRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgV0c6DQo+QXJlIHRoZXJlIGFu eSBvYmplY3Rpb25zIHRvIG1lcmdlIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtIHN0YXRlbWVudCBkcmFmdCBhbmQNCnJl cXVpcmVtZW50cyBkcmFmdCBpbnRvIGEgc2luZ2xlIGRvY3VtZW50IGNvbXByaXNpbmcgYm90aD8N Cj5UaGUgbWVyZ2VkIHZlcnNpb24gd291bGQgYWxzbyBhZGRyZXNzIHRoZSBjb21tZW50cyByZWNl aXZlZCBmb3IgdGhlDQpwcm9ibGVtIHN0YXRlbWVudCBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIElFU0cgcmV2aWV3Lg0K DQpObyBwcm9ibGVtIHdpdGggbWVyZ2luZyB0aGUgdHdvIGRvY3VtZW50cy4NCldoYXQgd291bGQg YmUgdGhlIG5hbWU6IFBQU1AgUHJvYmxlbSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgYW5kIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cz8NCg0K L0NocmlzdGlhbg0KDQoNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IHBwc3At Ym91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOnBwc3AtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxm IE9mDQpleHQgTWFydGluIFN0aWVtZXJsaW5nDQpTZW50OiBNb25kYXksIEphbnVhcnkgMTYsIDIw MTIgMjowOSBQTQ0KVG86IHBwc3BAaWV0Zi5vcmcNClN1YmplY3Q6IFtwcHNwXSBQcm9ibGVtIFN0 YXRlbWVudCBhbmQgUmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIERyYWZ0cw0KDQpEZWFyIGFsbCwgDQoNClRoZSBhdXRo b3JzIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcHBzcC1wcm9ibGVtLXN0YXRlbWVudCBoYXZlIHJlY2VpdmVkIGEg bnVtYmVyDQpvZiBjb21tZW50cyBmcm9tIHRoZSBJRVNHLiBZb3UgY2FuIHNlZSB0aGUgY29tbWVu dHMgaGVyZToNCmh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtcHBz cC1wcm9ibGVtLXN0YXRlbWVudC9iYWxsbw0KdC8NCg0KQW4gaW1wb3J0YW50IHJlb2NjdXJyaW5n IHF1ZXN0aW9uIGZyb20gdGhlIG1lbWJlcnMgb2YgdGhlIElFU0cgaXMgYWJvdXQNCnRoZSBzY29w ZSBvZiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgYW5kIGlmIHN1Y2ggYSBkb2N1bWVudCBpcyBzdGlsbCBuZWVkZWQu IFRoZQ0KZ2VuZXJhbCBhbnN3ZXIsIGF0IGxlYXN0IGluIG15IG9waW5pb24sIGlzIHRoYXQgc3Vj aCBkb2N1bWVudCBpcyBuZWVkIGFzDQppdCB3cml0ZXMgZG93biB0aGUgY2hhbGxlbmdlcyBhbmQg dGhlIGVudmlyb25tZW50cyBpbiB3aGljaCBhIHAycA0Kc3RyZWFtaW5nIHNob3VsZCBvcGVyYXRl LiANCg0KV2l0aCByZXNwZWN0IHRvIHRoZSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgZG9jdW1lbnQ6IFRoaXMgaGFz IG5vdCB5ZXQgbWFkZSBpdCB0bw0KdGhlIElFU0csIGJ1dCB3ZSByZWNlaXZlZCBzb21lIGNvbW1l bnRzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGlzIHJhdGhlcg0Kc21hbGwuIFRoaXMgaXMgbm90IGp1ZGdp bmcgdGhlIHRlY2huaWNhbCBxdWFsaXR5LiANCg0KSG93ZXZlciwgb3VyIEFEIHJlY29tbWVuZGVk IG1lcmdpbmcgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0gc3RhdGVtZW50IGFuZA0KcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGRvY3VtZW50 cyBpbnRvIGEgc2luZ2xlIGRvY3VtZW50LCBpbiBvcmRlciB0byBiZSBtb3JlDQpjb21wcmVoZW5z aXZlLiANCg0KTm93IHRoZSBxdWVzdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgV0c6DQpBcmUgdGhlcmUgYW55IG9iamVj dGlvbnMgdG8gbWVyZ2UgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0gc3RhdGVtZW50IGRyYWZ0IGFuZA0KcmVxdWlyZW1l bnRzIGRyYWZ0IGludG8gYSBzaW5nbGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgY29tcHJpc2luZyBib3RoPw0KVGhlIG1l cmdlZCB2ZXJzaW9uIHdvdWxkIGFsc28gYWRkcmVzcyB0aGUgY29tbWVudHMgcmVjZWl2ZWQgZm9y IHRoZQ0KcHJvYmxlbSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBJRVNHIHJldmlldy4NCg0KUGxlYXNl IGxldCB1cyBrbm93IHlvdXIgb3BpbmlvbiBhbmQgY29tbWVudHMgdW50aWwgSmFudWFyeSAyM3Jk LiANCg0KICBNYXJ0aW4NCg0KbWFydGluLnN0aWVtZXJsaW5nQG5lY2xhYi5ldQ0KDQpORUMgTGFi b3JhdG9yaWVzIEV1cm9wZSAtIE5ldHdvcmsgUmVzZWFyY2ggRGl2aXNpb24gTkVDIEV1cm9wZSBM aW1pdGVkIHwNClJlZ2lzdGVyZWQgT2ZmaWNlOiBORUMgSG91c2UsIDEgVmljdG9yaWEgUm9hZCwg TG9uZG9uIFczIDZCTCB8DQpSZWdpc3RlcmVkIGluIEVuZ2xhbmQgMjgzMjAxNCANCg0KDQpfX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KcHBzcCBtYWlsaW5n IGxpc3QNCnBwc3BAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGlu Zm8vcHBzcA0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18N CnBwc3AgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpwcHNwQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9t YWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3Bwc3A= ------=_001_NextPart240760176833_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
I think this name is fine.
 
BR
Yunfei
 
zhangyunfei
 
Date: 2012-01-16 21:25
Subject: Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements=20 Drafts
>Now the question to the WG:
>Are there any objections to merge t= he problem statement draft and
requirements draft into a single document&nb= sp;comprising both?
>The merged version would also address&nb= sp;the comments received for the
problem statement during the IESG review.
 
No problem with merging the two documen= ts.
What would be the name: PPSP Problem&nb= sp;statement and requirements?
 
/Christian
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org]&= nbsp;On Behalf Of
ext Martin Stiemerling
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 2:09 PM<= /DIV>
To: ppsp@ietf.org
Subject: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requir= ements Drafts
 
Dear all, 
 
The authors of draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement = have received a number
of comments from the IESG. You can = ;see the comments here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement/ba= llo
t/
 
An important reoccurring question from the&n= bsp;members of the IESG is about
the scope of the document and if s= uch a document is still needed. The
general answer, at least in my opinion,=  is that such document is need as
it writes down the challenges and the&n= bsp;environments in which a p2p
streaming should operate. 
 
With respect to the requirements document:&n= bsp;This has not yet made it to
the IESG, but we received some comments=  that the document is rather
small. This is not judging the technica= l quality. 
 
However, our AD recommended merging the = ;problem statement and
requirements documents into a single documen= t, in order to be more
comprehensive. 
 
Now the question to the WG:
Are there any objections to merge the&n= bsp;problem statement draft and
requirements draft into a single document&nb= sp;comprising both?
The merged version would also address t= he comments received for the
problem statement during the IESG review.
 
Please let us know your opinion and&nbs= p;comments until January 23rd. 
 
  Martin
 
martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu
 
NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research&n= bsp;Division NEC Europe Limited |
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria&nbs= p;Road, London W3 6BL |
Registered in England 2832014 
 
 
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
------=_001_NextPart240760176833_=------ From a.bakker@vu.nl Wed Jan 18 02:33:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3220A21F876C for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:33:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFDia8dkJgfH for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:33:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D61E21F876A for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:33:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from PEXHB012B.vu.local (130.37.236.67) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:33:23 +0100 Received: from [130.161.211.249] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:33:22 +0100 Message-ID: <4F16A012.70108@cs.vu.nl> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:33:54 +0100 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ppsp References: <4EF2EAF3.6060300@cs.vu.nl> <2011122309370674131325@chinamobile.com> In-Reply-To: <2011122309370674131325@chinamobile.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.238.20] Subject: Re: [ppsp] Open issues around swift X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:33:26 -0000 On 23/12/2011 02:37, zhangyunfei wrote: > [Speaking individually] > Hi Arno, > I remembered to mention one more point: Allow for multiple content > integrity check schemes besides Merkle hash tree. Wish it helpful for > the update of the peer draft. > Happy X'Mas£¡ Hi all as you may have noticed I created a Trac ticket for each open issue, at the request of the chairs. The idea is that these tickets are a record of the issues at hand. The chairs indicate that discussion about the issues and proposals to resolve them should go on the mailing list, not in the ticket's comments. Yunfei, I updated issue 10 to include video-on-demand. CU, Arno From a.bakker@vu.nl Wed Jan 18 02:41:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 250F521F872A for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:41:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qr+W4-SqzlF6 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:41:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9AD121F8489 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:41:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from PEXHB012B.vu.local (130.37.236.67) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:40:43 +0100 Received: from [130.161.211.249] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:41:19 +0100 Message-ID: <4F16A1EF.4060501@cs.vu.nl> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:41:51 +0100 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ppsp Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.238.20] Subject: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13 X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:41:22 -0000 Hi all in this mail I propose a solution to the following issues: 10. Need to allow for multiple content-integrity protection schemes for live video. [Picconi] (and video-on-demand) 13. Allow for multiple content addressing schemes, explain dependencies of other swift features on bin addressing. [Kiraly,Zhang] Proposal: ========= The (meta)data required for the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) to download and share a piece of content is extended. In addition to a swarm ID and a source of peer addresses, a downloader needs to known the chunk addressing and content integrity protection schemes used. This information can e.g. be encoded in a PPSPP URL and is assumed to come from a trusted source. Rationale: in PPSPP peers are untrustworthy, so these extra protocol options cannot be learnt from a sender as in a client/server protocol. Content Addressing ------------------ The HAVE, ACK, HINT and DATA messages are then defined to carry a chunk specification instead of a bin. A chunk specification identifies one or more chunks, following the chunk addressing scheme indicated in the PPSPP metadata. Chunk addressing schemes could also add metadata about the chunks in the chunk specification (cf. Issue 18) Content Integrity Protection ---------------------------- Initially, there is one content-integrity protection scheme defined, the Merkle hash trees. This scheme introduces the HASH messages for carrying the information needed to verify the integrity of a received chunk. When this scheme is used, the swarm ID is the root hash of the Merkle hash tree for video-on-demand. The HASH message contains a node specification and a Modification Detection Code (hash). A node specification identifies a node in the Merkle hash tree. Ideally, the node addressing scheme used is compatible with the chunk addressing scheme, as the former also needs to address leaf nodes which correspond to chunks. The bin numbering scheme is compatible and can address both nodes and chunks. Implementations of PPSPP SHOULD implement bin numbers and Merkle hash trees. What's your opinion? Arno From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:11:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17C421F879A for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:11:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wpXpOoRmQfqr for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:11:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C53C21F8795 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:11:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSUe-0005XD-QB; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:11:48 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:11:48 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/1 Message-ID: <052.a6263d46cb34a02dec901d0268c91ec4@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 1 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118101152.6C53C21F8795@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:11:52 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:35 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #1: Need to clarify how swift deals with SVC/MDC. X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:11:53 -0000 #1: Need to clarify how swift deals with SVC/MDC. E.g. single swarm vs. multiple swarms. [Cruz,Zhang,Kiraly] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: 1.0 Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:12:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE3221F879A for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:12:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LIZxg36ATrRO for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:12:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F7121F8777 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:12:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSVE-0005XV-47; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:12:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:12:24 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/2 Message-ID: <052.f3128a4c9fa3844e58b7885ab87d64f9@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 2 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118101224.72F7121F8777@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:12:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #2: Do we need freedom regarding push/pull of chunk availability? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:12:31 -0000 #2: Do we need freedom regarding push/pull of chunk availability? [Wang] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:12:54 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F27D221F879A for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:12:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1YQLTiuoZfYN for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:12:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8091F21F8777 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:12:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSVh-0005Xc-5l; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:12:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:12:53 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/3 Message-ID: <052.4e42b5ce125df950a43947383b3d50af@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 3 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118101253.8091F21F8777@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:12:53 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #3: Need to clarify that peer selection is not random, but policy controlled. X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:12:54 -0000 #3: Need to clarify that peer selection is not random, but policy controlled. [Yang] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:13:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB20B21F87A1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:13:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f7qryzSJzHXo for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:13:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE1A21F8777 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:13:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSW7-00069a-31; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:13:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:13:19 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/4 Message-ID: <052.1b07620768e850cd97c62b8362f9fa05@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 4 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118101319.6AE1A21F8777@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:13:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #4: Should we have explicit CHOKE/UNCHOKE messages? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:13:19 -0000 #4: Should we have explicit CHOKE/UNCHOKE messages? [Yang] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C906921F87DC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3zOObPNuteLG for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0FF21F8786 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnShk-00048o-Sj; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:25:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:25:20 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/28 Message-ID: <052.5c365cf66105601e0f7d3e6cd07b6de4@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 28 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104718.5D0FF21F8786@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:16 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #28: Do we need extra support for graceful and unexpected peer crashes? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:18 -0000 #28: Do we need extra support for graceful and unexpected peer crashes? [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07B4521F87DC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PtfstT7YebvB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9192921F87D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSkj-0006FJ-CB; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:28:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:28:25 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/34 Message-ID: <052.07ec78d35389079fddaa8e839d0e983e@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 34 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104718.9192921F87D2@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #34: Need to clarify resource usage of Merkle hash trees X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:19 -0000 #34: Need to clarify resource usage of Merkle hash trees (on-the-wire overhead) [Bakker] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2F721F87DC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eci+eKNa8uaY for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBDD21F87DB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSkE-0004qi-JA; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:27:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:27:54 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/33 Message-ID: <052.884addd15ffeb3ae16aaade3aad68809@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 33 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104718.BFBDD21F87DB@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #33: Need to clarify built-in NAT hole punching. X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:19 -0000 #33: Need to clarify built-in NAT hole punching. [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F0121F87DC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cC--gqq9yVwB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B1221F8786 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSjr-0002jr-Ko; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:27:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:27:31 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/32 Message-ID: <052.6920c175ebb92d9173c11cde86fcf6ed@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 32 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104718.F1B1221F8786@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:18 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #32: Need to clarify keep-alive mechanism. X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:19 -0000 #32: Need to clarify keep-alive mechanism. [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998D621F87DC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8REgl3nnspfj for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCA521F87D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSir-0007WR-K2; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:26:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:26:29 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/31 Message-ID: <052.01c9a40500f4fd39ea82c9cdde327156@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 31 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104719.2FCA521F87D2@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #31: Rename PEX_ADD to PEX_RES. X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:19 -0000 #31: Rename PEX_ADD to PEX_RES. [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D997421F87DC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DcSqFyxAaP1F for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600F921F87DB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSiW-0006HP-IS; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:26:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:26:08 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/30 Message-ID: <052.89df026bc79987631665f667cf742faa@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 30 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104719.600F921F87DB@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #30: Need to clarify why multiple HINTs in datagram. X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:20 -0000 #30: Need to clarify why multiple HINTs in datagram. [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10C7C21F87DD for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1mAMgtXy83vR for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F5121F8786 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSi8-00056b-Vp; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:25:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:25:44 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/29 Message-ID: <052.4c4f06e468ebaf553ece46df3c5ea20c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 29 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104719.91F5121F8786@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #29: Do we need a policy that controls *when* chunk availability updates are pushed? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:20 -0000 #29: Do we need a policy that controls *when* chunk availability updates are pushed? [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BDB21F87DC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aPVr-G62-AEw for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD02421F87D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnShP-0003Xo-BC; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:24:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:24:59 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/27 Message-ID: <052.cc6551291f142279089ec6f001995db6@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 27 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104719.BD02421F87D2@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:19 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #27: Which transport should we support? UDP or TCP? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:20 -0000 #27: Which transport should we support? UDP or TCP? [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7449921F8602 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XeF+jwfsNa7H for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0654E21F87DB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSh3-00037i-Kt; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:24:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:24:37 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/26 Message-ID: <052.2f31acaec7469ccd36319bc414e86273@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 26 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104720.0654E21F87DB@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #26: Evaluate the handshake procedure if it needs strengthening against "state-building attacks"? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:20 -0000 #26: Evaluate the handshake procedure if it needs strengthening against "state- building attacks"? [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60A721F87DB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uu7WSUwMIkdK for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7A121F8786 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSgi-0002T3-8Q; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:24:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:24:16 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/25 Message-ID: <052.cda06177142e828d5f5462edfca8c299@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 25 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104720.3B7A121F8786@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #25: Should we define how congestion control is signalled between peers? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:21 -0000 #25: Should we define how congestion control is signalled between peers? [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F6E21F87DC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZiJy3q26OcBm for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FABC21F87D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSgN-0001ji-PE; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:23:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:23:55 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/24 Message-ID: <052.60abb28ba94f970e3a015d5accea5ff9@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 24 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104720.8FABC21F87D2@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #24: Should we remove "RTP Profile for PPSP"? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:21 -0000 #24: Should we remove "RTP Profile for PPSP"? [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CAE21F87DD for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HreqS7qpRjD4 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE05521F8602 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSg2-00017J-Tx; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:23:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:23:34 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/23 Message-ID: <052.64d57a8d1d692b5960547e31a7b7bf6e@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 23 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104720.BE05521F8602@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #23: Should we define error codes? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:21 -0000 #23: Should we define error codes? [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75DD221F8602 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lp6RliXkuBSo for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D9921F8786 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSfi-0000d1-0w; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:23:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:23:14 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/22 Message-ID: <052.b7284c79ac86b8bfac53df4426cee929@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 22 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104720.F2D9921F8786@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:20 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #22: Should we define failure behaviour and semantics? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:21 -0000 #22: Should we define failure behaviour and semantics? E.g. When is a peer dead? [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C66321F87D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AHTzxu-LMxvP for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3006B21F87DC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSfJ-00086D-07; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:22:49 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:22:48 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/21 Message-ID: <052.df4650be53c3a3b114f24d675f7b67d2@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 21 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104721.3006B21F87DC@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #21: What information is required in on-the-wire protocol to allow for different congestion control mechanisms? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:22 -0000 #21: What information is required in on-the-wire protocol to allow for different congestion control mechanisms? [Stiemerling] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588B321F87D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E5P2ynpAtk-h for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E34D221F8602 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSf0-0007Z1-PP; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:22:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:22:30 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/20 Message-ID: <052.d1b7ddd8ab71770c15651edc6fbff2b8@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 20 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104721.E34D221F8602@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:21 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #20: Evaluate security implications of PEX. X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:22 -0000 #20: Evaluate security implications of PEX. [Bakker] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EF021F87DB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jBxJzLSc0gh4 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E1D821F8786 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSef-0006xX-3L; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:22:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:22:09 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/19 Message-ID: <052.39ccb18ff007bb21371c592e1e24d3f4@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 19 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104722.1E1D821F8786@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #19: Should we support push and pull and OFFER-ACCEPT models of streaming X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:22 -0000 #19: Should we support push and pull and OFFER-ACCEPT models of streaming i.e., add more flexibility in the way chunks are retrieved? [Kiraly] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C31AF21F87DB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0B0GjGg8yAEQ for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5396121F87D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSdv-00053K-TF; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:21:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:21:23 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/18 Message-ID: <052.1a5e30b938a334bb313ffdd9abfdcd6e@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 18 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104722.5396121F87D1@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #18: Should we support transferring extra metadata about chunks and peers in the wire protocol? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:22 -0000 #18: Should we support transferring extra metadata about chunks and peers in the wire protocol? [Kiraly] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1211321F87DE for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9cZqppmnoB7b for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8523921F87D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSdZ-0004fY-7t; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:21:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:21:01 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/17 Message-ID: <052.00142fc93bf68c33bab6a98e02a7eb3f@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 17 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104722.8523921F87D2@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #17: How to formulate behaviour of Peer-Exchange messages? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:23 -0000 #17: How to formulate behaviour of Peer-Exchange messages? What is recent? [Kiraly] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E24F21F87DF for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DkSdn8+futyL for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25EC21F8786 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSd6-00047g-GC; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:20:32 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:20:32 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/16 Message-ID: <052.98c0ac4b9d22a27166a3af57ccdf78e2@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 16 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104722.C25EC21F8786@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:22 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #16: Do we need a policy that controls to *whom* chunk availability updates are pushed? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:23 -0000 #16: Do we need a policy that controls to *whom* chunk availability updates are pushed? [Kiraly] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865A321F87DF for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9X3LnzlFR1uq for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060E821F87DB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnScj-0003Ql-Ou; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:20:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:20:09 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/15 Message-ID: <052.a74cf2388202c48c3b9f4b3d306df584@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 15 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104723.060E821F87DB@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #15: Need to add explanation to section 2 that this is an example behaviour X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:23 -0000 #15: Need to add explanation to section 2 that this is an example behaviour And not a requirement (regarding requesting disjunct sets of chunks from different peers). [Kiraly] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F9021F87E2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iH3NznnZBNp4 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B95521F87DC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSc3-00026Q-Lw; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:19:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:19:27 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/14 Message-ID: <052.afbef901ea0ec393ab9e663d9c32c593@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 14 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104723.3B95521F87DC@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #14: Need to clarify which features of swift depend on fixed-sized chunks X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:23 -0000 #14: Need to clarify which features of swift depend on fixed-sized chunks and which are chunk-size independent. [Kiraly] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2AFC21F87E3 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HlcQpnKtJ9yu for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E8D21F87E1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSbh-0001gC-9C; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:19:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:19:05 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/13 Message-ID: <052.7aa07ba17eebac3990438d28d69d0529@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 13 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104723.78E8D21F87E1@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #13: Allow for multiple content addressing schemes X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:24 -0000 #13: Allow for multiple content addressing schemes And explain dependencies of other swift features on bin addressing. [Kiraly,Zhang] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22FEE21F87D8 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K4h57lKumwKc for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABAD521F8786 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSb8-0000Sf-CB; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:18:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:18:30 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/12 Message-ID: <052.2b48865b53878bfc4446beafed9d778b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 12 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104723.ABAD521F8786@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #12: Should we support UNHINTing of chunk requests? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:24 -0000 #12: Should we support UNHINTing of chunk requests? [Picconi] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576A521F87D8 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jLNecBkZ3JKZ for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF35321F87DF for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSam-0008F5-Sx; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:18:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:18:08 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/11 Message-ID: <052.98bb90912edac98de2605b38903f8d4c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 11 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104723.DF35321F87DF@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:23 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #11: Need to clarify that swift doesn't specify how content is stored. X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:24 -0000 #11: Need to clarify that swift doesn't specify how content is stored. [Cruz] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847F121F87D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4odMbtfYcKpT for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0B921F87E5 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSaH-0007O8-U5; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:17:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:17:37 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/10 Message-ID: <052.7c15cd821963634cd709a5db71c30aae@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 10 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104724.1E0B921F87E5@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #10: Need to allow for multiple content-integrity protection schemes X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:24 -0000 #10: Need to allow for multiple content-integrity protection schemes for live video [Picconi] and video-on-demand [Zhang] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B818021F87D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G74Aeqpy--xC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDF721F87D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSZD-0006W9-0P; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:16:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:16:30 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/9 Message-ID: <052.530d5dc46cb4d3835b471ce3e1e3e2df@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 9 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104724.4BDF721F87D1@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #9: Should we support substreams as a first class entity X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:24 -0000 #9: Should we support substreams as a first class entity for SVC, multiple audio tracks? [Picconi] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC09F21F87D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BSOY8yg3cdsB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E8B21F87D8 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSYj-0006VF-4k; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:16:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:16:01 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/8 Message-ID: <052.6fdfa1dcaae8b64aadabe9899e5e7c9d@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 8 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104724.84E8B21F87D8@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #8: Should we support View-Upload Decoupling? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:25 -0000 #8: Should we support View-Upload Decoupling? [Picconi] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E40521F87DD for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lMlh32yXdtkW for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD9B21F87D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSYL-0006UK-U5; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:15:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:15:37 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/7 Message-ID: <052.c15823c3103df44035d901d568a7a7d7@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 7 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104724.DCD9B21F87D1@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:24 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #7: Should we support pull-token or pull-push streaming X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:25 -0000 #7: Should we support pull-token or pull-push streaming i.e., add more flexibility in the way chunks are retrieved? [Picconi] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFC021F87D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tYcr-J1sb15O for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E24321F87D8 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSXq-0006T0-KR; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:15:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:15:06 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/6 Message-ID: <052.503f12e0cfbb3cc52fcd0beb045cb177@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 6 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104725.1E24321F87D8@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:25 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #6: Need to clarify how higher layers can control swift download process X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:26 -0000 #6: Need to clarify how higher layers can control swift download process for seeking, switch audio/subtitles, SVC. [Cruz] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB3121F87DC for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mdW56bFyI46p for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9ED721F87D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSXK-0006RG-TH; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:14:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:14:34 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/5 Message-ID: <052.d2acc3cb0b5634901035a3efd7f84fa4@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 5 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104725.C9ED721F87D2@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:25 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #5: Do we need a policy that controls when chunk availability updates are pushed? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:26 -0000 #5: Do we need a policy that controls when chunk availability updates are pushed? [Yang] -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Keywords: ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jan 18 02:47:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8425E21F87DE for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LPkyEdQ0xuWI for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12EA921F87D8 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1RnSWN-00069e-UX; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:13:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "ppsp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.12.2 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.2, by Edgewall Software To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl X-Trac-Project: ppsp Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:13:35 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/4#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.478dcda4957c602bbaef285edbdff4a7@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.1b07620768e850cd97c62b8362f9fa05@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 4 In-Reply-To: <052.1b07620768e850cd97c62b8362f9fa05@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@tools.ietf.org, arno@cs.vu.nl, ppsp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on gamay.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120118104726.12EA921F87D8@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:47:26 -0800 (PST) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:36:36 -0800 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] #4: Should we have explicit CHOKE/UNCHOKE messages? X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:47:26 -0000 #4: Should we have explicit CHOKE/UNCHOKE messages? Changes (by arno@…): * type: defect => enhancement -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Wed Jan 18 16:42:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5FA11E80E9 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:42:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -93.921 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-93.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.082, BAYES_05=-1.11, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AMFNuWupvORT for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:42:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A879111E80E8 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:42:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37BDCE7CF; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:42:38 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A23BE7C9; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:42:38 +0800 (CST) Received: from cmcc- ([10.1.5.3]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012011908423594-1175 ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:42:35 +0800 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:42:35 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: "arno@cs.vu.nl" , ppsp References: <4EF2EAF3.6060300@cs.vu.nl> <2011122309370674131325@chinamobile.com>, <4F16A012.70108@cs.vu.nl> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <201201190842357502813@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-01-19 08:42:36, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-01-19 08:42:37, Serialize complete at 2012-01-19 08:42:37 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart767457155763_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18654.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--27.232-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--27.232-7.0-31-10;No--27.232-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Subject: [ppsp] =?gb2312?b?u9i4tDogUmU6ICBPcGVuIGlzc3VlcyBhcm91bmQgc3dp?= =?gb2312?b?ZnQ=?= X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: zhangyunfei 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: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:42:40 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart767457155763_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" SGkgQXJubywNCiAgIFRoYXQncyBmaW5lIHRvIGNvbnNpZGVyIGJvdGggbGl2ZSBhbmQgVm9EIGNh c2UgaW4gdGhlIGNvbnRlbnQtaW50ZWdyaXR5IHByb3RlY3Rpb24gc2NoZW1lcy4NCg0KQlINCll1 bmZlaQ0KDQoNCg0KDQp6aGFuZ3l1bmZlaQ0KDQq3orz+yMujuiBBcm5vIEJha2tlcg0Kt6LLzcqx vOSjuiAyMDEyLTAxLTE4IDE4OjMzDQrK1bz+yMujuiBwcHNwDQrW98zio7ogUmU6IFtwcHNwXSBP cGVuIGlzc3VlcyBhcm91bmQgc3dpZnQNCk9uIDIzLzEyLzIwMTEgMDI6MzcsIHpoYW5neXVuZmVp IHdyb3RlOg0KPiBbU3BlYWtpbmcgaW5kaXZpZHVhbGx5XQ0KPiBIaSBBcm5vLA0KPiBJIHJlbWVt YmVyZWQgdG8gbWVudGlvbiBvbmUgbW9yZSBwb2ludDogQWxsb3cgZm9yIG11bHRpcGxlIGNvbnRl bnQgDQo+IGludGVncml0eSBjaGVjayBzY2hlbWVzIGJlc2lkZXMgTWVya2xlIGhhc2ggdHJlZS4g V2lzaCBpdCBoZWxwZnVsIGZvciANCj4gdGhlIHVwZGF0ZSBvZiB0aGUgcGVlciBkcmFmdC4NCj4g SGFwcHkgWCdNYXOjoQ0KDQpIaSBhbGwNCg0KYXMgeW91IG1heSBoYXZlIG5vdGljZWQgSSBjcmVh dGVkIGEgVHJhYyB0aWNrZXQgZm9yIGVhY2ggb3BlbiBpc3N1ZSwgYXQNCnRoZSByZXF1ZXN0IG9m IHRoZSBjaGFpcnMuIFRoZSBpZGVhIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhlc2UgdGlja2V0cyBhcmUgYSByZWNvcmQN Cm9mIHRoZSBpc3N1ZXMgYXQgaGFuZC4gVGhlIGNoYWlycyBpbmRpY2F0ZSB0aGF0IGRpc2N1c3Np b24gYWJvdXQgdGhlDQppc3N1ZXMgYW5kIHByb3Bvc2FscyB0byByZXNvbHZlIHRoZW0gc2hvdWxk IGdvIG9uIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QsIG5vdA0KaW4gdGhlIHRpY2tldCdzIGNvbW1lbnRzLg0K DQpZdW5mZWksIEkgdXBkYXRlZCBpc3N1ZSAxMCB0byBpbmNsdWRlIHZpZGVvLW9uLWRlbWFuZC4N Cg0KQ1UsDQogICAgQXJubw0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fXw0KcHBzcCBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCnBwc3BAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3 LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcHBzcA== ------=_001_NextPart767457155763_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
Hi Arno,
   That's fine to consider both live and VoD case in the=20 content-integrity protection schemes.
 
BR
Yunfei
 
zhangyunfei
 
=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB=A3=BA Arno Bakker
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4=A3=BA 2012-01-18 18:33
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB=A3=BA ppsp
=D6=F7=CC=E2=A3=BA Re: [ppsp] Open issues around swift
On 23/12/2011 02:37, zhangyunfei wrote:
> [Speaking individually]
> Hi Arno,
> I remembered to mention one more&n= bsp;point: Allow for multiple content 
> integrity check schemes besides Merkle&= nbsp;hash tree. Wish it helpful for 
> the update of the peer draft.
> Happy X'Mas=A3=A1
 
Hi all
 
as you may have noticed I created = a Trac ticket for each open issue, at
the request of the chairs. The idea&nbs= p;is that these tickets are a record
of the issues at hand. The chairs = indicate that discussion about the
issues and proposals to resolve them sh= ould go on the mailing list, not
in the ticket's comments.
 
Yunfei, I updated issue 10 to include&n= bsp;video-on-demand.
 
CU,
    Arno
 
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
------=_001_NextPart767457155763_=------ From Fabio.Picconi@technicolor.com Thu Jan 19 06:14:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E57721F8604 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:14:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iJv8R1A67zwc for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:14:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from na3sys009aog114.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog114.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF54C21F8603 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:13:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mopesedge02.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob114.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTxglJZogtqqk/KKDfOYblndT2D6bNqGr@postini.com; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:14:00 PST Received: from MOPESMAILHC02.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.29) by mopesedge02.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.253.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.192.1; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:12:08 +0100 Received: from MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.1.20]) by MOPESMAILHC02.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.29]) with mapi; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:12:19 +0100 From: Picconi Fabio To: "arno@cs.vu.nl" , ppsp Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:12:17 +0100 Thread-Topic: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13 Thread-Index: AczVzbxRWw4EJvjSSlyAlUEJwg/47AA5dNhA Message-ID: <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204A4D07528@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> References: <4F16A1EF.4060501@cs.vu.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F16A1EF.4060501@cs.vu.nl> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13 X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:14:01 -0000 Hi, and happy new 2012! The Content Addressing part looks good. As for the Content Integrity part, in the HINT message I would rather use a= "chunk specification" instead of a "node specification", to make it generi= c and thus consistent with the Content Addressing data types. I'm fine with "SHOULD implement bin numbers" to support a base integrity me= chanism. This defines the messages and data types. The question that remains is *whe= n* the HASH messages must be transmitted, as this may depend on the specifi= c integrity mechanism. Fabio -----Original Message----- From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Arn= o Bakker Sent: mercredi 18 janvier 2012 11:42 To: ppsp Subject: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13 Hi all in this mail I propose a solution to the following issues: 10. Need to allow for multiple content-integrity protection schemes for live video. [Picconi] (and video-on-demand) 13. Allow for multiple content addressing schemes, explain dependencies of other swift features on bin addressing. [Kiraly,Zhang] Proposal: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The (meta)data required for the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol=20 (PPSPP) to download and share a piece of content is extended. In=20 addition to a swarm ID and a source of peer addresses, a downloader=20 needs to known the chunk addressing and content integrity protection=20 schemes used. This information can e.g. be encoded in a PPSPP URL and is=20 assumed to come from a trusted source. Rationale: in PPSPP peers are untrustworthy, so these extra protocol=20 options cannot be learnt from a sender as in a client/server protocol. Content Addressing ------------------ The HAVE, ACK, HINT and DATA messages are then defined to carry a chunk=20 specification instead of a bin. A chunk specification identifies one or=20 more chunks, following the chunk addressing scheme indicated in the=20 PPSPP metadata. Chunk addressing schemes could also add metadata about=20 the chunks in the chunk specification (cf. Issue 18) Content Integrity Protection ---------------------------- Initially, there is one content-integrity protection scheme defined, the Merkle hash trees. This scheme introduces the HASH messages for=20 carrying the information needed to verify the integrity of a received=20 chunk. When this scheme is used, the swarm ID is the root hash of the=20 Merkle hash tree for video-on-demand. The HASH message contains a node specification and a Modification=20 Detection Code (hash). A node specification identifies a node in the=20 Merkle hash tree. Ideally, the node addressing scheme used is compatible=20 with the chunk addressing scheme, as the former also needs to address=20 leaf nodes which correspond to chunks. The bin numbering scheme is=20 compatible and can address both nodes and chunks. Implementations of PPSPP SHOULD implement bin numbers and Merkle hash trees= . What's your opinion? Arno _______________________________________________ ppsp mailing list ppsp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Thu Jan 19 06:17:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2F7921F8572 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:17:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.293 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.330, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DY00AJ7mnSVN for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:17:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7111821F8577 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:17:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46623E8B8; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:17:30 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38160E8B7; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:17:30 +0800 (CST) Received: from cmcc- ([10.1.5.3]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012011922172725-16237 ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:17:27 +0800 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:17:25 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: "arno@cs.vu.nl" , ppsp References: <4F16A1EF.4060501@cs.vu.nl> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2012011922161976516317@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-01-19 22:17:28, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-01-19 22:17:30, Serialize complete at 2012-01-19 22:17:30 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart733608664601_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18654.007 X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.288-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--10.288-7.0-31-10;No--10.288-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Subject: Re: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13 X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: zhangyunfei 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: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:17:45 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart733608664601_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" W1NwZWFraW5nIGluZGl2aWR1YWxseV0NCkhpIEFybm8sDQogICAgIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIGNvbnRl bnQgYWRkcmVzc2luZyBwcm9wb3NhbCBpcyByZWFzb25hYmxlIHRvIGFsbG93IGZvciBtdWx0aXBs ZSBzY2hlbWVzLiANCiAgICAgUmVnYXJkaW5nIGNvbnRlbnQgaW50ZWdyaXR5IHByb3Bvc2FsLCBJ IGFtIGEgbGl0dGxlIGJpdCBjb25mdXNlZDogSXMgdGhhdCBzYXlpbmcgdGhhdCBNZXJrbGUgdHJl ZSBzb2x1dGlvbiBpcyBhIG1hbmRhdG9yeSBzY2hlbWUgaW4gY29udGVudCBpbnRlZ3JpdHkgc2No ZW1lPyBJIGFtIG5vdCBmYXZvcmluZyBvZiB0aGlzIGlmIHRoaXMgd2VyZSB0aGUgY2FzZS4gQWZ0 ZXIgYWxsLCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgbWFueSBvdGhlciBzY2hlbWVzIHVzZWQgaW4gcHJhY3RpY2UuIFdl IGFyZSBoYXJkIHRvIGRldGVybWluZSB0aGF0IG1lcmtsZSB0cmVlIGlzIG1hbmRhdG9yeS4NCiAg ICBGb3IgdGhlIHNhbWUgcmVhc29uLCBJIHdvdWxkIHN1Z2dlc3QgdG8gc2F5IHRoYXQgImltcGxl bWVudGF0aW9ucyBvZiBQUFNQUCBNQVkgaW1wbGVtZW50IGJpbiBudW1iZXJzIGFuZCBNZXJrbGUg aGFzaCB0cmVlcyIuIElzIHRoaXMgbWFraW5nIHNlbnNlPw0KDQpCUg0KWXVuZmVpDQoNCg0KDQoN CnpoYW5neXVuZmVpDQoNCkZyb206IEFybm8gQmFra2VyDQpEYXRlOiAyMDEyLTAxLTE4IDE4OjQx DQpUbzogcHBzcA0KU3ViamVjdDogW3Bwc3BdIFByb3Bvc2FsIHRvIHJlc29sdmUgSXNzdWUgMTAg KyAxMw0KSGkgYWxsDQoNCmluIHRoaXMgbWFpbCBJIHByb3Bvc2UgYSBzb2x1dGlvbiB0byB0aGUg Zm9sbG93aW5nIGlzc3VlczoNCg0KMTAuIE5lZWQgdG8gYWxsb3cgZm9yIG11bHRpcGxlIGNvbnRl bnQtaW50ZWdyaXR5IHByb3RlY3Rpb24gc2NoZW1lcyBmb3INCmxpdmUgdmlkZW8uIFtQaWNjb25p XSAgKGFuZCB2aWRlby1vbi1kZW1hbmQpDQoNCjEzLiBBbGxvdyBmb3IgbXVsdGlwbGUgY29udGVu dCBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIHNjaGVtZXMsIGV4cGxhaW4gZGVwZW5kZW5jaWVzDQpvZiBvdGhlciBzd2lm dCBmZWF0dXJlcyBvbiBiaW4gYWRkcmVzc2luZy4gW0tpcmFseSxaaGFuZ10NCg0KUHJvcG9zYWw6 DQo9PT09PT09PT0NCg0KVGhlIChtZXRhKWRhdGEgcmVxdWlyZWQgZm9yIHRoZSBQZWVyLXRvLVBl ZXIgU3RyZWFtaW5nIFBlZXIgUHJvdG9jb2wgDQooUFBTUFApIHRvIGRvd25sb2FkIGFuZCBzaGFy ZSBhIHBpZWNlIG9mIGNvbnRlbnQgaXMgZXh0ZW5kZWQuIEluIA0KYWRkaXRpb24gdG8gYSBzd2Fy bSBJRCBhbmQgYSBzb3VyY2Ugb2YgcGVlciBhZGRyZXNzZXMsIGEgZG93bmxvYWRlciANCm5lZWRz IHRvIGtub3duIHRoZSBjaHVuayBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIGFuZCBjb250ZW50IGludGVncml0eSBwcm90 ZWN0aW9uIA0Kc2NoZW1lcyB1c2VkLiBUaGlzIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGNhbiBlLmcuIGJlIGVuY29k ZWQgaW4gYSBQUFNQUCBVUkwgYW5kIGlzIA0KYXNzdW1lZCB0byBjb21lIGZyb20gYSB0cnVzdGVk IHNvdXJjZS4NCg0KUmF0aW9uYWxlOiBpbiBQUFNQUCBwZWVycyBhcmUgdW50cnVzdHdvcnRoeSwg c28gdGhlc2UgZXh0cmEgcHJvdG9jb2wgDQpvcHRpb25zIGNhbm5vdCBiZSBsZWFybnQgZnJvbSBh IHNlbmRlciBhcyBpbiBhIGNsaWVudC9zZXJ2ZXIgcHJvdG9jb2wuDQoNCg0KQ29udGVudCBBZGRy ZXNzaW5nDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NClRoZSBIQVZFLCBBQ0ssIEhJTlQgYW5kIERBVEEg bWVzc2FnZXMgYXJlIHRoZW4gZGVmaW5lZCB0byBjYXJyeSBhIGNodW5rIA0Kc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlv biBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mIGEgYmluLiBBIGNodW5rIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gaWRlbnRpZmllcyBvbmUg b3IgDQptb3JlIGNodW5rcywgZm9sbG93aW5nIHRoZSBjaHVuayBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIHNjaGVtZSBp bmRpY2F0ZWQgaW4gdGhlIA0KUFBTUFAgbWV0YWRhdGEuIENodW5rIGFkZHJlc3Npbmcgc2NoZW1l cyBjb3VsZCBhbHNvIGFkZCBtZXRhZGF0YSBhYm91dCANCnRoZSBjaHVua3MgaW4gdGhlIGNodW5r IHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gKGNmLiBJc3N1ZSAxOCkNCg0KDQpDb250ZW50IEludGVncml0eSBQcm90 ZWN0aW9uDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQpJbml0aWFsbHksIHRoZXJlIGlz IG9uZSBjb250ZW50LWludGVncml0eSBwcm90ZWN0aW9uIHNjaGVtZSBkZWZpbmVkLA0KdGhlIE1l cmtsZSBoYXNoIHRyZWVzLiBUaGlzIHNjaGVtZSBpbnRyb2R1Y2VzIHRoZSBIQVNIIG1lc3NhZ2Vz IGZvciANCmNhcnJ5aW5nIHRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBuZWVkZWQgdG8gdmVyaWZ5IHRoZSBpbnRl Z3JpdHkgb2YgYSByZWNlaXZlZCANCmNodW5rLiBXaGVuIHRoaXMgc2NoZW1lIGlzIHVzZWQsIHRo ZSBzd2FybSBJRCBpcyB0aGUgcm9vdCBoYXNoIG9mIHRoZSANCk1lcmtsZSBoYXNoIHRyZWUgZm9y IHZpZGVvLW9uLWRlbWFuZC4NCg0KVGhlIEhBU0ggbWVzc2FnZSBjb250YWlucyBhIG5vZGUgc3Bl Y2lmaWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgYSBNb2RpZmljYXRpb24gDQpEZXRlY3Rpb24gQ29kZSAoaGFzaCkuIEEg bm9kZSBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIGlkZW50aWZpZXMgYSBub2RlIGluIHRoZSANCk1lcmtsZSBoYXNo IHRyZWUuIElkZWFsbHksIHRoZSBub2RlIGFkZHJlc3Npbmcgc2NoZW1lIHVzZWQgaXMgY29tcGF0 aWJsZSANCndpdGggdGhlIGNodW5rIGFkZHJlc3Npbmcgc2NoZW1lLCBhcyB0aGUgZm9ybWVyIGFs c28gbmVlZHMgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyANCmxlYWYgbm9kZXMgd2hpY2ggY29ycmVzcG9uZCB0byBjaHVu a3MuIFRoZSBiaW4gbnVtYmVyaW5nIHNjaGVtZSBpcyANCmNvbXBhdGlibGUgYW5kIGNhbiBhZGRy ZXNzIGJvdGggbm9kZXMgYW5kIGNodW5rcy4NCg0KSW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zIG9mIFBQU1BQIFNI T1VMRCBpbXBsZW1lbnQgYmluIG51bWJlcnMgYW5kIE1lcmtsZSBoYXNoIHRyZWVzLg0KDQpXaGF0 J3MgeW91ciBvcGluaW9uPw0KICAgICAgQXJubw0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCnBwc3AgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpwcHNwQGlldGYub3JnDQpo dHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3Bwc3A= ------=_001_NextPart733608664601_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
[Speaking individually]
Hi Arno,
     I think the content addressing proposal= =20 is reasonable to allow for multiple schemes. 
     Regarding content integrity proposal, I= am=20 a little bit confused: Is that saying that Merkle tree solution = is a=20 mandatory scheme in content integrity scheme? I am not favoring of th= is if=20 this were the case. After all, there are many other schemes used in=20 practice. We are hard to determine that merkle tree is=20 mandatory.
    For the same reason, I would suggest to say that=20 "implementations of PPSPP MAY implement bin = numbers and Merkle hash trees".=20 Is this making sense?
 
BR
Yunfei
 
zhangyunfei
 
From: Arno Bakker
Date: 2012-01-18 18:41
To: ppsp
Subject: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 +=20 13
Hi all
 
in this mail I propose a solution = to the following issues:
 
10. Need to allow for multiple content-= integrity protection schemes for
live video. [Picconi]  (and video-on-demand)=
 
13. Allow for multiple content addressing&nb= sp;schemes, explain dependencies
of other swift features on bin addressi= ng. [Kiraly,Zhang]
 
Proposal:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 
The (meta)data required for the Peer-to-Peer=  Streaming Peer Protocol 
(PPSPP) to download and share a piece&n= bsp;of content is extended. In 
addition to a swarm ID and a sourc= e of peer addresses, a downloader 
needs to known the chunk addressing and=  content integrity protection 
schemes used. This information can e.g. = ;be encoded in a PPSPP URL and is =
assumed to come from a trusted source.<= /DIV>
 
Rationale: in PPSPP peers are untrustworthy,=  so these extra protocol 
options cannot be learnt from a sender&= nbsp;as in a client/server protocol.
 
 
Content Addressing
------------------
The HAVE, ACK, HINT and DATA messages&n= bsp;are then defined to carry a chunk <= /DIV>
specification instead of a bin. A chunk=  specification identifies one or 
more chunks, following the chunk addressing&= nbsp;scheme indicated in the 
PPSPP metadata. Chunk addressing schemes cou= ld also add metadata about 
the chunks in the chunk specification (= cf. Issue 18)
 
 
Content Integrity Protection
----------------------------
Initially, there is one content-integrity pr= otection scheme defined,
the Merkle hash trees. This scheme intr= oduces the HASH messages for 
carrying the information needed to verify&nb= sp;the integrity of a received 
chunk. When this scheme is used, the&nb= sp;swarm ID is the root hash of the&nbs= p;
Merkle hash tree for video-on-demand.
 
The HASH message contains a node specif= ication and a Modification 
Detection Code (hash). A node specification&= nbsp;identifies a node in the 
Merkle hash tree. Ideally, the node add= ressing scheme used is compatible 
with the chunk addressing scheme, as th= e former also needs to address 
leaf nodes which correspond to chunks. = The bin numbering scheme is 
compatible and can address both nodes a= nd chunks.
 
Implementations of PPSPP SHOULD implement bi= n numbers and Merkle hash trees.
 
What's your opinion?
      Arno
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
------=_001_NextPart733608664601_=------ From a.bakker@vu.nl Mon Jan 23 00:50:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601BD21F864C for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:50:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.426 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.411, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U8c-MQpOo5JN for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:50:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7DA21F8645 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:50:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from PEXHB012A.vu.local (130.37.236.66) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:50:55 +0100 Received: from [130.37.193.73] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:50:54 +0100 Message-ID: <4F1D1F72.5040801@cs.vu.nl> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:50:58 +0100 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ppsp References: <4F16A1EF.4060501@cs.vu.nl> <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204A4D07528@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> In-Reply-To: <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204A4D07528@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.238.20] Subject: Re: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13 X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl 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: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:50:58 -0000 On 19/01/2012 15:12, Picconi Fabio wrote: > Hi, and happy new 2012! > > The Content Addressing part looks good. > > As for the Content Integrity part, in the HINT message I would rather > use a "chunk specification" instead of a "node specification", to > make it generic and thus consistent with the Content Addressing data > types. > Hi I used a different name to convey that the chunk addressing needs "room" for node IDs if Merkle trees are used. So you propose not to use this textual trick, and just write down the requirement? > This defines the messages and data types. The question that remains > is *when* the HASH messages must be transmitted, as this may depend > on the specific integrity mechanism. > What do you mean exactly? The idea is that the HASH message is tied to the Merkle hash trees, so if you chose that scheme you'll have HASH messages. Or do you want to have a generic HASH message that can also be used by other integrity protection schemes? CU, Arno From a.bakker@vu.nl Mon Jan 23 01:03:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E0621F865A for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:03:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.389 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.521, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cXfXIWTApoxB for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:03:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4867D21F8658 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:03:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from PEXHB012A.vu.local (130.37.236.66) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:02:31 +0100 Received: from [130.37.193.73] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:03:11 +0100 Message-ID: <4F1D2252.1010800@cs.vu.nl> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:03:14 +0100 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ppsp References: <4F16A1EF.4060501@cs.vu.nl> <2012011922161976516317@chinamobile.com> In-Reply-To: <2012011922161976516317@chinamobile.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.238.20] Subject: Re: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13 X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl 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: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:03:13 -0000 On 19/01/2012 15:17, zhangyunfei wrote: > [Speaking individually] > Hi Arno, > I think the content addressing proposal is reasonable to allow for > multiple schemes. > Regarding content integrity proposal, I am a little bit confused: Is > that saying that Merkle tree solution is a mandatory scheme in content > integrity scheme? Hi Yunfei yes, in the sense of the SHOULD definition from RFC 2119: "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course." Merkle hash trees enable low latency when used with UDP. Using UDP means you want to use small chunk sizes such that a chunk fits in an Ethernet frame to reduce the chance of packet loss. This means you'll have lots of chunks and therefore lots of hashes. With Merkle hash trees you don't need to download all hashes beforehand, as in BitTorrent (all hashes in .torrent), so startup latency will be lower. > I am not favoring of this if this were the case. After > all, there are many other schemes used in practice. We are hard to > determine that merkle tree is mandatory. I think the Merkle hash trees have some important properties (see above). If there are other common (video-on-demand) protection schemes that fit the bill we should incorporate them in the draft. What schemes were you thinking of? CU, Arno From Fabio.Picconi@technicolor.com Mon Jan 23 05:08:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB8621F8735 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:08:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0p7uw2GINUfy for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:08:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from na3sys009aog125.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog125.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5639421F872D for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:08:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mopesedge02.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob125.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTx1bvTqV3XnBGRbMIPbQ0qGn3QiM8D0L@postini.com; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:08:16 PST Received: from MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.132) by mopesedge02.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.253.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.192.1; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:06:40 +0100 Received: from MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.1.206]) by MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.132]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:06:39 +0100 From: Picconi Fabio To: "arno@cs.vu.nl" , ppsp Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:06:38 +0100 Thread-Topic: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13 Thread-Index: AczZrCPfmXywO/e3Tkm8C+Ad2MF7sAAH02LQ Message-ID: <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204C4170C2C@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> References: <4F16A1EF.4060501@cs.vu.nl> <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204A4D07528@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <4F1D1F72.5040801@cs.vu.nl> In-Reply-To: <4F1D1F72.5040801@cs.vu.nl> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13 X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:08:17 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Arno Bakker > Sent: lundi 23 janvier 2012 09:51 > To: ppsp > Subject: Re: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13 >=20 > On 19/01/2012 15:12, Picconi Fabio wrote: > > Hi, and happy new 2012! > > > > The Content Addressing part looks good. > > > > As for the Content Integrity part, in the HINT message I would rather > > use a "chunk specification" instead of a "node specification", to > > make it generic and thus consistent with the Content Addressing data > > types. > > >=20 > Hi >=20 > I used a different name to convey that the chunk addressing needs > "room" > for node IDs if Merkle trees are used. So you propose not to use this > textual trick, and just write down the requirement? I meant that "node specification" sounds Merkle-specific, whereas "chunk sp= ecification" sounds more generic. In the case of Merkle trees, the chunk sp= ecification would consist of a node specification. > > This defines the messages and data types. The question that remains > > is *when* the HASH messages must be transmitted, as this may depend > > on the specific integrity mechanism. > > >=20 > What do you mean exactly? The idea is that the HASH message is tied to > the Merkle hash trees, so if you chose that scheme you'll have HASH > messages. Or do you want to have a generic HASH message that can also > be > used by other integrity protection schemes? What I had in mind is a generic HASH message that can be used by other mech= anisms. It probably makes more sense to call it INTEGRITY (or something lik= e that) rather than HASH. Fabio From a.bakker@vu.nl Wed Jan 25 00:30:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E0021F869A for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:30:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.214 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.214 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1vkumoRC6aeC for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:30:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181F621F8699 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from PEXHB012B.vu.local (130.37.236.67) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:30:11 +0100 Received: from [130.161.211.249] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:30:10 +0100 Message-ID: <4F1FBD98.1040802@cs.vu.nl> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:30:16 +0100 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ppsp Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.238.20] Subject: [ppsp] Proposal to solve Issue #26 X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl 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: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:30:14 -0000 Hi all in this mail a proposal to solve issue: 26. Evaluate the handshake procedure if it needs strengthening against "state-building attacks"? Proposal ======== Following the analysis in RFC 5971, the PPSP peer protocol may be attacked with 2 types of denial-of-service attacks: 1. DOS amplification attack: attackers try to use a PPSPP peer to generate more traffic to a victim. 2. DOS flood attack: attackers try to deny service to other peers by allocating lots of state at a PPSPP peer. The current -00 draft already contains the basic scheme to protect against these attacks in the UDP encapsulation. I'll describe the scheme first (WG item, Sec. 6.1.3+4): When UDP is used, all datagrams carrying PPSPP messages are prefixed with a 4-byte channel ID. These channel IDs are random numbers, established during the handshake phase as follows. Peer A initiates an exchange with peer B by sending a datagram containing a HANDSHAKE message prefixed with the channel ID consisting of all 0s. Peer A's HANDSHAKE contains a randomly chosen channel ID, chanA: A->B: chan0 + HANDSHAKE(chanA) + ... When peer B receives this datagram, it creates some state for peer A, that at least contains the channel ID chanA. Next, peer B sends a response to A, consisting of a datagram containing a HANDSHAKE message prefixed with the chanA channel ID. Peer B's HANDSHAKE contains a randomly chosen channel ID, chanB. B->A: chanA + HANDSHAKE(chanB) + ... Peer A now knows that peer B really responds, as it echoed chanA. So the next datagram that A sends may already contain heavy payload, i.e., a chunk. This next datagram to B will be prefixed with the chanB channel ID. When B receives this datagram, both peers have the proof they are really talking to eachother, the three-way handshake is complete. In other words, the randomly chosen channel IDs act as cookies (cf. RFC5971, Sec. 4.4.1). A->B: chanB + HAVE + DATA + ... Protection against attack 1 --------------------------- In short, the draft already prescribes a so-called return routability check before heavy payload is sent. This means that attack 1 is fended off: PPSPP does not send back much more data than it received, unless it knows it is talking to a live peer. Attackers now need to intercept the message from B to A to get B to send heavy payload, and ensure that that heavy payload goes to the victim, something assumed too hard to be a pratical attack. Care should also be taken that a PPSPP implementation doesn't consider an unacknowledged peer as a subscriber to updates from that peer, i.e., the PPSPP peer must not send any HAVEs when push-based chunk availability updating is used. I propose to add a clarification to the draft. Note the rule is that no heavy payload may be sent until the third datagram. This has implications for PPSPP implementations that use chunk addressing schemes that are verbose. If a PPSPP implementation uses large bitmaps to convey chunk availability these may not be sent by peer B in the second datagram. Protection against attack 2 --------------------------- In WG draft -00, on receiving the first datagram peer B will record some state about peer A. At present this state consists of the chanA channel ID, and the results of processing the other messages in the first datagram. In particular, if A included some HAVE messages, B may add a chunk availability map to A's state. In addition, B may request some chunks from A in the second datagram, and B will maintain state about these outgoing requests. Theoretically, peer A could also have included HINTs and HASHes in the first datagram. This could happen if peer A received some additional information about B's progress along with B's IP address+port. Such HINTs would lead to a request queue being added to A's state, and any HASHes, e.g., the peak hashes for the content if B is a new peer, would lead to the allocation by B of a partial hash tree and adding that to B's overall state. Practically, there currently is no such extra progress information associated with peer addresses. At present, HINTs and HAVEs are sent by A in the third datagram or later. If HAVEs are light (e.g., bin numbers are used for chunk availability), B will include some HAVE messages in the second datagram. Only after receiving this info, A knows what chunks B has and will B send requests or bootstrap B with peak hashes. So presently, PPSPP is somewhat vulnerable to attack 2. An attacker could send many datagrams with HANDSHAKEs and HAVEs and thus allocate state at the PPSPP peer. A proper implementation of PPSPP, however, will add a timer to this state and if the third datagram is not received soon, it will discard it. I propose to modify the draft to require that peer A responds immediately to the second datagram, if it is still interested in peer B. If there is immediate interest, the response contains HINTs or DATA messages. If there is long term interest, e.g. in receiving HAVEs from B, the response may be just a keep-alive (=datagram is just chanB channel ID). If A has lost interest in B, A should send an explicit close (HANDSHAKE with all 0 channel number as payload and prefixed with chanB) to B. By making quick response the rule the DOS protection improves, as the timeout for cleaning up stale state can be small. With this modification I think the current protection is sufficient. If the WG thinks otherwise, we can introduce the mechanism from RFC5971 in which the receiving peer may refuse to install state on the first datagram. In other words, in the second datagram B will signal to A that is has not installed any state yet (other than remembering the channel ID chanA), and that A should resend any extra info it included in the first datagram in the third datagram (of which B knows it comes from a routable peer). See RFC 5971, Sec. 4.4.1. Requirements for channel IDs ---------------------------- The safety of this scheme depends on the randomly chosen channel IDs. RFC5971 Sec. 8.5 lists the following requirements for initial (chanA) cookies: "Liveness: The cookie must be live; that is, it must change from one handshake to the next. This prevents replay attacks. Unpredictability: The cookie must not be guessable, e.g., from a sequence or timestamp. This prevents direct forgery after capturing a set of earlier messages. Easily validated: It must be efficient for the [peer] to validate that a particular cookie matches an in-progress handshake, [...] This allows to discard responses that have been randomly generated by an adversary, or to discard responses to queries that were generated with forged source addresses [...]. Uniqueness: Each handshake must have a unique cookie since the cookie is used to match responses within a handshake, e.g., when multiple messaging associations are multiplexed over the same transport connection. " For response (chanB) cookies RFC5971 lists the following requirements that apply: "Liveness: The cookie must be live as above, to prevent replay attacks. Creation simplicity: The cookie must be lightweight to generate in order to avoid resource exhaustion at the responding node. Validation simplicity: It must be simple for the R-node to validate that an R-Cookie was generated by itself and no one else, without storing state about the handshake for which it was generated. " (Binding requirement does not apply) 4-byte channel IDs meet all but the last criterion. This last criterion would enable peer B to remain stateless during the handshake. However, to keep latency low, I would like peer B to be able to at least request some data from A in the second datagram, so B needs to store some state about A anyway. Hence, I propose to ignore the last criterion. What do you think? Arno From a.bakker@vu.nl Wed Jan 25 00:40:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6CA21F84B6 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:40:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.462 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wjswZBtoMVk6 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:40:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2397A21F84A3 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:40:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from PEXHB012B.vu.local (130.37.236.67) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:40:17 +0100 Received: from [130.161.211.249] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:40:16 +0100 Message-ID: <4F1FBFF6.8030800@cs.vu.nl> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:40:22 +0100 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Picconi Fabio References: <4F16A1EF.4060501@cs.vu.nl> <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204A4D07528@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <4F1D1F72.5040801@cs.vu.nl> <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204C4170C2C@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> In-Reply-To: <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204C4170C2C@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.238.20] Cc: ppsp Subject: Re: [ppsp] Proposal to resolve Issue 10 + 13 X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl 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: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:40:18 -0000 On 23/01/2012 14:06, Picconi Fabio wrote: > > I meant that "node specification" sounds Merkle-specific, whereas > "chunk specification" sounds more generic. In the case of Merkle > trees, the chunk specification would consist of a node > specification. > Hi I propose to formulate the ability to also address nodes as a MUST requirement when Merkle trees are used, and use chunk spec everywhere. > What I had in mind is a generic HASH message that can be used by > other mechanisms. It probably makes more sense to call it INTEGRITY > (or something like that) rather than HASH. > I'm fine with a rename and generic message with an integrity scheme-specific payload. CU, Arno From victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com Thu Jan 26 15:13:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065C521F8603 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:13:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TBCdV08Kcf3D for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:13:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDCA821F85F1 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:13:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by wgbed3 with SMTP id ed3so910788wgb.13 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:13:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=7WwcoAGmHvz3kBVg8oYwmIRgrzhU5NsHijtBOO0trkw=; b=DQYZt7N/yB2K/nKNMZr644+kog3VG+TV84U62+TLiZTLTQthEWs3YR+2f4iV68eKNk GgLqMg73Lj5FPZtd8aOA7CCEJ0B0KiaGy2YmIz++ngE+qSiiVWbQKHvscumDUbvhIaL0 e+N1hkhX2LDkoFf/X9NQnL1EtXXp4AMXMZlc8= Received: by 10.180.97.37 with SMTP id dx5mr8856137wib.3.1327619580088; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:13:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.174.191.157] ([80.27.100.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n3sm17198449wiz.9.2012.01.26.15.12.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:12:58 -0800 (PST) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <4B302CD4-AE39-40AB-B40B-56A74A2B5C60@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A405) From: Victor Pascual Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:12:53 +0100 To: ZongNing Cc: "ppsp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:13:02 -0000 +1 On Jan 17, 2012, at 1:28 AM, ZongNing wrote: > I don't have problem with merging these two drafts. >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ma= rtin Stiemerling > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 9:09 PM > To: ppsp@ietf.org > Subject: [ppsp] Problem Statement and Requirements Drafts >=20 > Dear all,=20 >=20 > The authors of draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement have received a number of= comments from the IESG. You can see the comments here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement/ballot/= >=20 > An important reoccurring question from the members of the IESG is about th= e scope of the document and if such a document is still needed. The general a= nswer, at least in my opinion, is that such document is need as it writes do= wn the challenges and the environments in which a p2p streaming should opera= te.=20 >=20 > With respect to the requirements document: This has not yet made it to the= IESG, but we received some comments that the document is rather small. This= is not judging the technical quality.=20 >=20 > However, our AD recommended merging the problem statement and requirements= documents into a single document, in order to be more comprehensive.=20 >=20 > Now the question to the WG: > Are there any objections to merge the problem statement draft and requirem= ents draft into a single document comprising both? > The merged version would also address the comments received for the proble= m statement during the IESG review. >=20 > Please let us know your opinion and comments until January 23rd.=20 >=20 > Martin >=20 > martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu >=20 > NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited | R= egistered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in E= ngland 2832014=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp > _______________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp From a.bakker@vu.nl Sun Jan 29 23:29:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8E121F85DD for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:29:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.468 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WP5QA3Vs1Ngt for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:29:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13FEF21F85D9 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:29:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from PEXHB012B.vu.local (130.37.236.67) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:29:00 +0100 Received: from [109.37.27.196] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:28:58 +0100 Message-ID: <4F2646C1.3040502@cs.vu.nl> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:29:05 +0100 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ppsp References: <20120130072214.1312.12049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120130072214.1312.12049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120130072214.1312.12049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.238.20] Subject: [ppsp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-01.txt X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl 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: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:29:03 -0000 Hi with the chairs' permission I just submitted a new version of the WG item. It contains the simple textual changes from the issue list (e.g., clarifications), so they are out of the way. See below for an overview of all changes. I'll mark those issues as closed in the Trac ticket system. Please feel free to raise an issue again if you think it has been insufficiently addressed. CU, Arno --------------------------------- Appendix A. Revision History -00 2011-12-19 Initial version. -01 2010-10-27 Minor text revision: * Changed heading to "A. Bakker" * Changed title to *Peer* Protocol, and abbreviation PPSPP. * Replaced swift with PPSPP. * Removed Sec. 6.4. "HTTP (as PPSP)". * Renamed Sec. 8.4. to "Chunk Picking Algorithms". * Resolved Ticket #3: Removed sentence about random set of peers. * Resolved Ticket #6: Added clarification to "Chunk Picking Algorithms" section. * Resolved Ticket #11: Added Sec. 3.12 on Storage Independence * Resolved Ticket #13: Added clarification to "Automatic Size Detection" section. * Resolved Ticket #15: Operation section now states it shows example behaviour for a specific set of policies and schemes. * Resolved Ticket #30: Explained why multiple HINTs in one datagram. * Resolved Ticket #31: Renamed PEX_ADD message to PEX_RES. * Resolved Ticket #32: Renamed Sec 3.8. to "Keep Alive Signaling", and updated explanation. * Resolved Ticket #33: Explained NAT hole punching via only PPSPP messages. * Resolved Ticket #34: Added section about limited overhead of the Merkle hash tree scheme. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-01.txt Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:22:14 -0800 From: To: CC: A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Arno Bakker and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol Revision: 01 Title: Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) Creation date: 2012-01-30 WG ID: ppsp Number of pages: 37 Abstract: The Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) is a peer-to-peer based transport protocol for content dissemination. It can be used for streaming on-demand and live video content, as well as conventional downloading. In PPSPP, the clients consuming the content participate in the dissemination by forwarding the content to other clients via a mesh-like structure. It is a generic protocol which can run directly on top of UDP, TCP, or as a RTP profile. Features of PPSPP are short time-till-playback and extensibility. Hence, it can use different mechanisms to prevent freeriding, and work with different peer discovery schemes (centralized trackers or Distributed Hash Tables). Depending on the underlying transport protocol, PPSPP can also use different congestion control algorithms, such as LEDBAT, and offer transparent NAT traversal. Finally, PPSPP maintains only a small amount of state per peer and detects malicious modification of content. This documents describes PPSPP and how it satisfies the requirements for the IETF Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol (PPSP) Working Group's peer protocol. The IETF Secretariat