From sprevidi@cisco.com Mon Jun 4 02:39:20 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 197FC21F862B for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:39:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V0YxtUUQ4XEJ for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF21821F8610 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 02:39:18 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from stew-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q549dFVK008527 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:39:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dhcp-10-61-99-70.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-99-70.cisco.com [10.61.99.70]) by stew-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q549dDjQ011890; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:39:13 +0200 (CEST) From: stefano previdi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:39:12 +0200 To: ppsp , zhangyunfei Zhang Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) Subject: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update 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, 04 Jun 2012 09:39:20 -0000 All, here are some notes i preparation of the next PPSP meeting we're going to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html) 1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism We currently have two proposals that I'd try to name as: . Bin Notation . Ranges Both proposals have been discussed in the mailing list and it looks to me we're NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any of them also due to lack of participation of the WG into the discussion (other than the authors of each proposal). Therefore, as of today, we can reasonably explore the following options: Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer protocol specification and we define them both MANDATORY so to cope with interoperability issues. Option-2: we select one option through a WG vote (this is my least preferred option). Since I'd really prefer to avoid Option-2, I can only consider the "dual" specification. WG opinion on this is requested. Again, it would be very beneficial to the WG if current implementors of streaming protocols would/could speak-up and give their opinion (see point 4 below). 2. Peer Protocol - Security Section The IESG will not accept any protocol specification without a consistent security section (IOW: way more than what we currently have) although there are some arguments on whether we need the security mechanisms in the base spec. Arno and Zong Ning proposed some text and we need to agree/amend it asap so to update the draft. I'd like to close this one and have a new version of the draft for next meeting. 3. Tracker Protocol After IETF83 we agreed to split into two distinct drafts: base specification and optional extensions. Authors, it would be good to have a first submission before next meeting. 4. Survey draft. We need to refresh/re-submit and the chairs proposed the authors/editors to include a section on deployment experiences and more precisely on chunk addressing and security mechanisms. Hopefully this will also feed ongoing discussions. 5. Meeting during IETF84. We have requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone interested, please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or myself. Let us know if anything is missing. Thanks. Stefano & Yunfei From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Mon Jun 4 19:15:43 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 4C1C211E80FF for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:15:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.824 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, 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 q8lbsxINX5hT for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCB211E80E2 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0684E528 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 10:15:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6707E525 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 10:15:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from zyf-PC ([10.2.52.214]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012060510152190-14805 ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 10:15:21 +0800 Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 10:15:21 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: ppsp X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2012060510152149598522@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-05 10:15:21, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-05 10:15:38, Serialize complete at 2012-06-05 10:15:38 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart415221854215_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18948.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.920-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--15.920-7.0-31-10;No--15.920-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Subject: [ppsp] Fw: IAB/IRTF workshop on Congestion Control for Interactive Real-Time Communication 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, 05 Jun 2012 02:15:43 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart415221854215_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" SGkgYWxsLA0KICAgICBUaGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHdvcmtzaG9wIGlzIHJlbGF0ZWQgdG8gUFBTUCB0 byBzb21lIGV4dGVudC4gUGxlYXNlIGJlIHJlYWR5IGZvciB0aGlzIGlmIHlvdSBhcmUgaW50ZXJl c3RlZCBpbiBpdC4NCg0KQlINCll1bmZlaQ0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0K DQpJQUIgLyBJUlRGIFdvcmtzaG9wIG9uDQpDb25nZXN0aW9uIENvbnRyb2wgZm9yIEludGVyYWN0 aXZlDQpSZWFsLVRpbWUgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbg0KSnVseSAyOCwgMjAxMg0KVmFuY291dmVyLCBD YW5hZGENCg0KVGhlIElBQiBhbmQgSVJURiB3aWxsIGhvbGQgYSB3b3Jrc2hvcCBvbiBDb25nZXN0 aW9uIENvbnRyb2wgZm9yIEludGVyYWN0aXZlIFJlYWwtVGltZSBDb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIiBpbiBW YW5jb3V2ZXIsIENhbmFkYSBvbiBTYXR1cmRheSwgSnVseSAyOHRoLCAyMDEyIHByaW9yIHRvIHRo ZSBJRVRGLTg0IG1lZXRpbmcgKHNlZSBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21lZXRpbmcvODQvaW5k ZXguaHRtbCkuICBQYXJ0aWNpcGF0aW9uIGF0IHRoZSB3b3Jrc2hvcCBpcyBmcmVlIG9mIGNoYXJn ZS4gVGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQgdG8gZWl0aGVyIHJlZ2lzdGVyIHdpdGggb3IgYXR0 ZW5kIHRoZSBJRVRGLTg0IG1lZXRpbmcgdGhhdCBmb2xsb3dzIHRoZSB3b3Jrc2hvcC4NCg0KVGhl IHdvcmtzaG9wIG9yZ2FuaXplcnMgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBmb3N0ZXIgYSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIG9u Og0KMS4gV2hhdCBhcmUgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgY29uZ2VzdGlvbiBzaWduYWxzIHRvIHVzZSBmb3Ig aW50ZXJhY3RpdmUgbWVkaWEgYW5kIGRhdGE/DQoyLiBXaGF0IGV4aXN0aW5nIGNvbmdlc3Rpb24g Y29udHJvbCBhbGdvcml0aG1zIGFyZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZSBmb3IgaW50ZXJhY3RpdmUgbWVkaWEg YW5kIGRhdGE/IFdoYXQgcHJvcGVydGllcyB3b3VsZCBiZSBkZXNpcmFibGUgaW4gbmV3IGNvbmdl c3Rpb24gY29udHJvbCBhbGdvcml0aG1zPw0KMy4gTWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgYW5kL29yIHNpbXVsYXRp b25zIG9mIG5ldyBjb25nZXN0aW9uIHNpZ25hbHMgKGUuZy4sIGRlbGF5LWJhc2VkKSBhbmQgdGhl aXIgaW50ZXJhY3Rpb24gd2l0aCBleGlzdGluZyBjb25nZXN0aW9uIGNvbnRyb2wgbWVjaGFuaXNt cy4NCjQuIFdoYXQgYXJlIGdvb2QgYXZhaWxhYmxlIHRlY2huaXF1ZXMgZm9yIGFkanVzdGluZyBz ZW5kaW5nIHJhdGVzIGZvciBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBtZWRpYSBhbmQgZGF0YT8gV2hhdCBhcmUgdGhl IGxpbWl0cyBvZiB0aG9zZSB0ZWNobmlxdWVzPyBXaGF0IHByb3BlcnRpZXMgd291bGQgYmUgZGVz aXJhYmxlIGluIG5ldyB0ZWNobmlxdWVzPw0KNS4gV2hhdCBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi1zcGVjaWZpYyBj b25zaWRlcmF0aW9ucyBoYXZlIHRvIGJlIHRha2VuIGludG8gYWNjb3VudD8NCjYuIEhvdyBjYW4g d2UgZW5zdXJlIHRoYXQgcmVhbC10aW1lIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb25zIGFyZSB3ZWxsLWJlaGF2ZWQg d2l0aCByZXNwZWN0IHRvIG90aGVyIEludGVybmV0IGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyB3aGlsZSBzdGlsbCBw cm92aWRpbmcgZ29vZCBxdWFsaXR5Pw0KNy4gV2hhdCBzaG91bGQgdGhlIElFVEYgYW5kL29yIElS VEYgZG8/DQpUaGUgb3JnYW5pemVycyBzZWVrIHBvc2l0aW9uIHBhcGVycyBvbiBhbnkgb3IgYWxs IG9mIHRoZXNlIHRvcGljcywgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyBvdGhlciB0b3BpY3MgcmVsYXRlZCB0byBjb25n ZXN0aW9uIGNvbnRyb2wgZm9yIGludGVyYWN0aXZlIHJlYWx0aW1lIG1lZGlhLg0KDQpFdmVyeSBw cm9zcGVjdGl2ZSB3b3Jrc2hvcCBwYXJ0aWNpcGFudCBtdXN0IHN1Ym1pdCBhIHBvc2l0aW9uIHBh cGVyIGNvbnRhaW5pbmcgYSBuYW1lIGFuZCBhbiBlbWFpbCBhZGRyZXNzLiBBdXRob3JzIG9mIGFj Y2VwdGVkIHBhcGVycyB3aWxsIGJlIGludml0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIHdvcmtzaG9wLiBQYXBlcnMgdXAg dG8gMyBwYWdlcywgZm9ybWF0dGVkIGluIEhUTUwsIFBERiwgb3IgcGxhaW4gdGV4dCAoZm9yIGV4 YW1wbGUsIGFzIGEgc3VibWl0dGVkIEludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0KSBhcmUgaWRlYWwuIEFjY2VwdGVk IHBvc2l0aW9uIHBhcGVycyB3aWxsIGJlIHB1Ymxpc2hlZC4gIEFkZGl0aW9uYWwgZGV0YWlscyBh Ym91dCB0aGUgbWVldGluZyB2ZW51ZSB3aWxsIGJlIHByb3ZpZGVkIHRvIGF1dGhvcnMgb2YgYWNj ZXB0ZWQgcGFwZXJzLg0KSW1wb3J0YW50IERhdGVzDQpQb3NpdGlvbiBwYXBlciBzdWJtaXNzaW9u IGRlYWRsaW5lOiAgICAgICAgICBKdW5lIDIzLCAyMDEyDQpOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gdG8gcGFwZXIg YXV0aG9yczogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIEp1bmUgMzAsIDIwMTINCldvcmtzaG9wIGRh dGU6ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgSnVseSAyOCwg MjAxMg0KQWRkaXRpb25hbCBEZXRhaWxzDQpBZGRpdGlvbmFsIGRldGFpbHMgb24gdGhlIHdvcmtz aG9wIGFzIHdlbGwgYXMgdGhlIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gcHJvY2VzcyBpcyBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgaHR0 cDovL3d3dy5pYWIub3JnL2NjLXdvcmtzaG9wLw0KQ29udGFjdA0KVG8gc3BvbnNvcnM6IElmIHlv dSBhcmUgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCB0byBoZWxwIHVzIHdvcmtpbmcgdG93YXJkcyBiZXR0ZXIgaW50ZXJh Y3RpdmUgbWVkaWEgY29uZ2VzdGlvbiBjb250cm9sIG1lY2hhbmlzbXMgb24gdGhlIEludGVybmV0 IChzdWNoIGFzIGJ5IG1ha2luZyBhIGNvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbiB0b3dhcmRzIGNhdGVyaW5nIGNvc3Rz IGFuZCByb29tIHJlbnRhbCksIHBsZWFzZSBjb250YWN0IHVzIQ0KSW4gY2FzZSBvZiBxdWVzdGlv bnMgcGxlYXNlIHNlbmQgZW1haWwgdG8gbWFyeS5pZXRmLmJhcm5lcyBhdCBnbWFpbC5jb20u ------=_001_NextPart415221854215_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
Hi all,
     The following workshop is related to PPSP to= some=20 extent. Please be ready for this if you are interested in it.
 
BR
Yunfei
---------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------------
 
IAB / IRTF Workshop on
Congestion Control for Interactive
Real-Time Communication
July 28, 2012
Vancouver, Canada
 
The IAB and IRTF will hold a works= hop on Congestion Control for Interactive Re= al-Time Communication" in Vancouver, Canada on&nb= sp;Saturday, July 28th, 2012 prior to the&nb= sp;IETF-84 meeting (see http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/inde= x.html).  Participation at the workshop is&n= bsp;free of charge. There is no requirement&= nbsp;to either register with or attend the&n= bsp;IETF-84 meeting that follows the workshop.
 
The workshop organizers would like to f= oster a discussion on:
1.=20 What are appropriate congestion signals to u= se for interactive media and data?
2.=20 What existing congestion control algorithms are&n= bsp;appropriate for interactive media and data?&n= bsp;What properties would be desirable in ne= w congestion control algorithms?
3.=20 Measurement and/or simulations of new congestion&= nbsp;signals (e.g., delay-based) and their intera= ction with existing congestion control mechanisms= .
4.=20 What are good available techniques for adjus= ting sending rates for interactive media and=  data? What are the limits of those&nbs= p;techniques? What properties would be desirable&= nbsp;in new techniques?
5.=20 What application-specific considerations have to = be taken into account?
6.=20 How can we ensure that real-time communicati= ons are well-behaved with respect to other&n= bsp;Internet applications while still providing g= ood quality?
7. What should the IETF and/or IRTF do?=
The organizers seek position papers on = any or all of these topics, as well&nbs= p;as other topics related to congestion cont= rol for interactive realtime media.
 
Every prospective workshop participant must = submit a position paper containing a name&nb= sp;and an email address. Authors of accepted=  papers will be invited to the workshop= . Papers up to 3 pages, formatted in&nb= sp;HTML, PDF, or plain text (for example,&nb= sp;as a submitted Internet-Draft) are ideal. = ;Accepted position papers will be published. = ; Additional details about the meeting venue=  will be provided to authors of accepte= d papers.
Important Dates
Position paper submission deadline:   &= nbsp;      June 23, 2012
Notification to paper authors:    =             &n= bsp;      June 30, 2012
Workshop date:        &n= bsp;           &nbs= p;            =             Ju= ly 28, 2012
Additional Details
Additional details on the workshop as w= ell as the submission process is available&n= bsp;at http://www.iab.org/cc-workshop/
Contact
To sponsors: If you are interested to&n= bsp;help us working towards better interactive&nb= sp;media congestion control mechanisms on the&nbs= p;Internet (such as by making a contribution=  towards catering costs and room rental),&nb= sp;please contact us!
In case of questions please send email&= nbsp;to mary.ietf.barnes at gmail.com.
------=_001_NextPart415221854215_=------ From a.bakker@vu.nl Tue Jun 5 00:03:53 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 5530C21F86A4 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 00:03:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 WjpyiO0R9BAi for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 00:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A7A21F86A2 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 00:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PEXHB011A.vu.local (130.37.236.64) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:03:48 +0200 Received: from [130.37.193.73] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:03:48 +0200 Message-ID: <4FCDAFA7.2020903@cs.vu.nl> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:05:11 +0200 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.238.20] Subject: Re: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update 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: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 07:03:53 -0000 Hi all please see inline. On 04/06/2012 11:39, stefano previdi wrote: > All, > > here are some notes i preparation of the next PPSP meeting we're > going to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html) > > 1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism > Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer protocol > specification and we define them both MANDATORY so > to cope with interoperability issues. As long as they use the same division into chunks (e.g. required by the Merkle hash tree for content integrity protection) there should not be a problem translating bins to ranges and vice versa. Note there are two possible types of ranges: ranges of chunk IDs, and byte ranges. I'm currently updating the -01 draft following the issues raised since January, which includes freedom to have different addressing schemes and the two proposals. > 2. Peer Protocol - Security Section Part of the update the security section is extending the security analyses and solutions discussed since January. The update will give us a draft that addresses all major topics, with some strategic decisions to be made on default transport, and extra features to add or reject. We hope to have a new version next week. CU, Arno From rui.cruz@ieee-pt.org Tue Jun 5 01:23:08 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 B3D6F21F86EB for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 01:23:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 nFu3oLRya7AU for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 01:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 618D421F86B9 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 01:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so1915609eek.31 for ; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 01:23:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=y0tOESgGxQOwBpTZD/14e6Qi7MGMqlOVozbhVfbx4So=; b=faLPJRHxB/22xf2pxo7zEq9BTRr1tfTH0NFeQguMh6AM2sfpV2c+A2JBzF6ip0wc5W ZAf+B3vD6K3ydMfESa472xP3rzAy1F/vn1wK/uyO+StbJTQ6poht4E7KG5PLVsncLQXV E2tsmN79LFCX6fRxQl/aC1RopwjGYyodhZgCzRh2cj1LSCqkpTrPwBr/t1ez6a3R1dR/ uKNNRrc/3L0x1vGwvejaIQ/OsENuLdXPllNFdBQlCh6di7gx6LN5qQgmjxjmWVK4D2en 4ljmuCNPW5orfmIInd9a56mt3AUfTrBEuljlicikIRD8ucPh0HcFZtHMqD0IGT/p7ZE4 eHsQ== Received: by 10.14.53.80 with SMTP id f56mr6970264eec.167.1338884584822; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 01:23:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from airoso.lan ([89.180.1.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s8sm3209551ees.16.2012.06.05.01.22.59 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 05 Jun 2012 01:23:03 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Rui Cruz Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FE5EFDA6-F9EA-4C1D-A97E-2210D44E29A6" From: Rui Cruz In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:22:56 +0100 Message-Id: <6ABC3DF4-69B9-4C03-BF9B-0AFEFD8C38C5@ieee.org> References: To: stefano previdi X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm7lPNfOzrPyU/2k4YKjwDJrCHPBJhYy9xqxxtWARmvdwD4lI7xlkYKH3AtEnb4kt+eZXdl Cc: Rui Cruz , ppsp Subject: Re: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update 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, 05 Jun 2012 08:23:09 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_FE5EFDA6-F9EA-4C1D-A97E-2210D44E29A6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi, The Tracker Protocol is being split to a base specification draft and = to extensions. We hope to have the base specification submitted in a couple of weeks.=20= Regards, Rui Cruz rui.cruz@ieee.org IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal __________________________________________ ppsp mailing list ppsp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp On 04/06/2012, at 10:39, stefano previdi wrote: > All, >=20 > here are some notes i preparation of the next PPSP meeting we're=20 > going to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html) >=20 > 1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism > We currently have two proposals that I'd try to name as: > . Bin Notation > . Ranges > Both proposals have been discussed in the mailing list and it=20 > looks to me we're NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any of=20 > them also due to lack of participation of the WG into the=20 > discussion (other than the authors of each proposal). >=20 > Therefore, as of today, we can reasonably explore the=20 > following options: > Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer protocol=20 > specification and we define them both MANDATORY so=20 > to cope with interoperability issues. > Option-2: we select one option through a WG vote (this is my=20 > least preferred option). >=20 > Since I'd really prefer to avoid Option-2, I can only consider=20 > the "dual" specification. WG opinion on this is requested. >=20 > Again, it would be very beneficial to the WG if current=20 > implementors of streaming protocols would/could speak-up and=20 > give their opinion (see point 4 below). >=20 > 2. Peer Protocol - Security Section > The IESG will not accept any protocol specification without a=20 > consistent security section (IOW: way more than what we=20 > currently have) although there are some arguments on whether=20 > we need the security mechanisms in the base spec. >=20 > Arno and Zong Ning proposed some text and we need to agree/amend=20 > it asap so to update the draft. I'd like to close this one and=20 > have a new version of the draft for next meeting. >=20 > 3. Tracker Protocol > After IETF83 we agreed to split into two distinct drafts: base=20 > specification and optional extensions. >=20 > Authors, it would be good to have a first submission before next=20 > meeting. >=20 > 4. Survey draft. > We need to refresh/re-submit and the chairs proposed the=20 > authors/editors to include a section on deployment experiences=20 > and more precisely on chunk addressing and security mechanisms.=20 > Hopefully this will also feed ongoing discussions. >=20 > 5. Meeting during IETF84. > We have requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone=20 > interested, please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or=20 > myself. >=20 > Let us know if anything is missing. >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > Stefano & Yunfei > _______________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp --Apple-Mail=_FE5EFDA6-F9EA-4C1D-A97E-2210D44E29A6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Regards,

Rui = Cruz
<= font class=3D"Apple-style-span" = color=3D"#1555cb">
IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, = Portugal
__________________________________________
<= div>ppsp mailing = list

On 04/06/2012, at 10:39, stefano previdi wrote:

All,

here are some notes i preparation of the = next PPSP meeting we're
going to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/mee= ting/84/index.html)

1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressing = mechanism
  We currently have two proposals that I'd try = to name as:
. Bin Notation
. Ranges
  Both proposals = have been discussed in the mailing list and it
  looks to = me we're NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any of
=   them also due to lack of participation of the WG into the =
  discussion (other than the authors of each = proposal).

  Therefore, as of today, we can reasonably = explore the
  following options:
=   Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer protocol =
=             sp= ecification and we define them both MANDATORY so
=             to= cope with interoperability issues.
  Option-2: we select = one option through a WG vote (this is my
=             le= ast preferred option).

  Since I'd really prefer to = avoid Option-2, I can only consider
  the "dual" = specification. WG opinion on this is requested.

=   Again, it would be very beneficial to the WG if current
=   implementors of streaming protocols would/could speak-up and =
  give their opinion (see point 4 below).

2. Peer = Protocol - Security Section
  The IESG will not accept any = protocol specification without a
  consistent security = section (IOW: way more than what we
  currently have) = although there are some arguments on whether
  we need = the security mechanisms in the base spec.

  Arno and = Zong Ning proposed some text and we need to agree/amend
=   it asap so to update the draft. I'd like to close this one = and
  have a new version of the draft for next = meeting.

3. Tracker Protocol
  After IETF83 we = agreed to split into two distinct drafts: base
=   specification and optional extensions.

=   Authors, it would be good to have a first submission before = next
  meeting.

4. Survey draft.
=   We need to refresh/re-submit and the chairs proposed the =
  authors/editors to include a section on deployment = experiences
  and more precisely on chunk addressing and = security mechanisms.
  Hopefully this will also feed = ongoing discussions.

5. Meeting during IETF84.
  We = have requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone
=   interested, please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or =
  myself.

Let us know if anything is = missing.

Thanks.

Stefano & = Yunfei
_______________________________________________
ppsp = mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/ppsp

= --Apple-Mail=_FE5EFDA6-F9EA-4C1D-A97E-2210D44E29A6-- From Fabio.Picconi@technicolor.com Thu Jun 7 06:07:20 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 803B921F876F for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 06:07:20 -0700 (PDT) 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 ch03pgG4qKZ9 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 06:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4575F21F8723 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 06:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from MOPESEDGE01.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob102.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT9CnhXFn8BCGeqrnGmcugSTwz5ziuTJp@postini.com; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 06:07:19 PDT Received: from MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com (141.11.100.132) by mail3.technicolor.com (141.11.253.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.192.1; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:02:23 +0200 Received: from MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.1.225]) by MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.132]) with mapi; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:02:29 +0200 From: Picconi Fabio To: ppsp Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:02:26 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update Thread-Index: Ac1CNe5vI5NrTcnCSxSGHBhGVcqj/ACd6vGg Message-ID: <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204EFAD04EF@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> References: In-Reply-To: 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] PPSP WG Update 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, 07 Jun 2012 13:07:20 -0000 I will do some simulations to determine which chunk addressing mechanism pe= rforms best in the average case. Fabio > -----Original Message----- > From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > stefano previdi > Sent: lundi 4 juin 2012 11:39 > To: ppsp; zhangyunfei Zhang > Subject: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update >=20 > All, >=20 > here are some notes i preparation of the next PPSP meeting we're going > to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html) >=20 > 1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism > We currently have two proposals that I'd try to name as: > . Bin Notation > . Ranges > Both proposals have been discussed in the mailing list and it > looks to me we're NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any of > them also due to lack of participation of the WG into the > discussion (other than the authors of each proposal). >=20 > Therefore, as of today, we can reasonably explore the > following options: > Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer protocol > specification and we define them both MANDATORY so > to cope with interoperability issues. > Option-2: we select one option through a WG vote (this is my > least preferred option). >=20 > Since I'd really prefer to avoid Option-2, I can only consider > the "dual" specification. WG opinion on this is requested. >=20 > Again, it would be very beneficial to the WG if current > implementors of streaming protocols would/could speak-up and > give their opinion (see point 4 below). >=20 > 2. Peer Protocol - Security Section > The IESG will not accept any protocol specification without a > consistent security section (IOW: way more than what we > currently have) although there are some arguments on whether > we need the security mechanisms in the base spec. >=20 > Arno and Zong Ning proposed some text and we need to agree/amend > it asap so to update the draft. I'd like to close this one and > have a new version of the draft for next meeting. >=20 > 3. Tracker Protocol > After IETF83 we agreed to split into two distinct drafts: base > specification and optional extensions. >=20 > Authors, it would be good to have a first submission before next > meeting. >=20 > 4. Survey draft. > We need to refresh/re-submit and the chairs proposed the > authors/editors to include a section on deployment experiences > and more precisely on chunk addressing and security mechanisms. > Hopefully this will also feed ongoing discussions. >=20 > 5. Meeting during IETF84. > We have requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone > interested, please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or > myself. >=20 > Let us know if anything is missing. >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > Stefano & Yunfei > _______________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Sun Jun 10 18:33:34 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 356B621F84D6 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:33:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.023 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, 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 fp9lqVFKj4dX for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:33:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA07121F84D5 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:33:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4731EE40A; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:33:30 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39AACE409; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:33:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from zyf-PC ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012061109332843-1636 ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:33:28 +0800 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:33:27 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: "Picconi Fabio" , ppsp References: , <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204EFAD04EF@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <201206110933269837847@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-11 09:33:28, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-11 09:33:29, Serialize complete at 2012-06-11 09:33:29 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart304285203034_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18962.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--28.238-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--28.238-7.0-31-10;No--28.238-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Subject: Re: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 01:33:34 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart304285203034_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" VGhhbmtzIEZhYmlvLiBUaGF0IHdpbGwgYmUgZ29vZCBpbiBtYWtpbmcgdGhlIHByb3RvY29sIHNv bGlkLiBMb29raW5nIGZvcndhcmQgdG8geW91ciByZXN1bHQuIA0KDQoNCkJSDQpZdW5mZWkNCg0K DQoNCg0KDQoNCnpoYW5neXVuZmVpDQoNCkZyb206IFBpY2NvbmkgRmFiaW8NCkRhdGU6IDIwMTIt MDYtMDcgMjE6MDINClRvOiBwcHNwDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW3Bwc3BdIFBQU1AgV0cgVXBkYXRl DQpJIHdpbGwgZG8gc29tZSBzaW11bGF0aW9ucyB0byBkZXRlcm1pbmUgd2hpY2ggY2h1bmsgYWRk cmVzc2luZyBtZWNoYW5pc20gcGVyZm9ybXMgYmVzdCBpbiB0aGUgYXZlcmFnZSBjYXNlLg0KDQpG YWJpbw0KDQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogcHBzcC1ib3Vu Y2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86cHBzcC1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YN Cj4gc3RlZmFubyBwcmV2aWRpDQo+IFNlbnQ6IGx1bmRpIDQganVpbiAyMDEyIDExOjM5DQo+IFRv OiBwcHNwOyB6aGFuZ3l1bmZlaSBaaGFuZw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBbcHBzcF0gUFBTUCBXRyBVcGRh dGUNCj4gDQo+IEFsbCwNCj4gDQo+IGhlcmUgYXJlIHNvbWUgbm90ZXMgaSBwcmVwYXJhdGlvbiBv ZiB0aGUgbmV4dCBQUFNQIG1lZXRpbmcgd2UncmUgZ29pbmcNCj4gdG8gaGF2ZSBpbiBWYW5jb3V2 ZXIgKGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWVldGluZy84NC9pbmRleC5odG1sKQ0KPiANCj4gMS4g UGVlciBQcm90b2NvbCAtIGNodW5rIGFkZHJlc3NpbmcgbWVjaGFuaXNtDQo+ICAgIFdlIGN1cnJl bnRseSBoYXZlIHR3byBwcm9wb3NhbHMgdGhhdCBJJ2QgdHJ5IHRvIG5hbWUgYXM6DQo+IC4gQmlu IE5vdGF0aW9uDQo+IC4gUmFuZ2VzDQo+ICAgIEJvdGggcHJvcG9zYWxzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBkaXNj dXNzZWQgaW4gdGhlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdCBhbmQgaXQNCj4gICAgbG9va3MgdG8gbWUgd2UncmUg Tk9UIGFjaGlldmluZyBhZ3JlZW1lbnQvY29uc2Vuc3VzIG9uIGFueSBvZg0KPiAgICB0aGVtIGFs c28gZHVlIHRvIGxhY2sgb2YgcGFydGljaXBhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgV0cgaW50byB0aGUNCj4gICAg ZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiAob3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgYXV0aG9ycyBvZiBlYWNoIHByb3Bvc2FsKS4NCj4g DQo+ICAgIFRoZXJlZm9yZSwgYXMgb2YgdG9kYXksIHdlIGNhbiByZWFzb25hYmx5IGV4cGxvcmUg dGhlDQo+ICAgIGZvbGxvd2luZyBvcHRpb25zOg0KPiAgICBPcHRpb24tMTogV2UgcHJvcG9zZSBi b3RoIHNvbHV0aW9ucyBpbiB0aGUgcGVlciBwcm90b2NvbA0KPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgc3BlY2lm aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgd2UgZGVmaW5lIHRoZW0gYm90aCBNQU5EQVRPUlkgc28NCj4gICAgICAgICAg ICAgIHRvIGNvcGUgd2l0aCBpbnRlcm9wZXJhYmlsaXR5IGlzc3Vlcy4NCj4gICAgT3B0aW9uLTI6 IHdlIHNlbGVjdCBvbmUgb3B0aW9uIHRocm91Z2ggYSBXRyB2b3RlICh0aGlzIGlzIG15DQo+ICAg ICAgICAgICAgICBsZWFzdCBwcmVmZXJyZWQgb3B0aW9uKS4NCj4gDQo+ICAgIFNpbmNlIEknZCBy ZWFsbHkgcHJlZmVyIHRvIGF2b2lkIE9wdGlvbi0yLCBJIGNhbiBvbmx5IGNvbnNpZGVyDQo+ICAg IHRoZSAiZHVhbCIgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbi4gV0cgb3BpbmlvbiBvbiB0aGlzIGlzIHJlcXVlc3Rl ZC4NCj4gDQo+ICAgIEFnYWluLCBpdCB3b3VsZCBiZSB2ZXJ5IGJlbmVmaWNpYWwgdG8gdGhlIFdH IGlmIGN1cnJlbnQNCj4gICAgaW1wbGVtZW50b3JzIG9mIHN0cmVhbWluZyBwcm90b2NvbHMgd291 bGQvY291bGQgc3BlYWstdXAgYW5kDQo+ICAgIGdpdmUgdGhlaXIgb3BpbmlvbiAoc2VlIHBvaW50 IDQgYmVsb3cpLg0KPiANCj4gMi4gUGVlciBQcm90b2NvbCAtIFNlY3VyaXR5IFNlY3Rpb24NCj4g ICAgVGhlIElFU0cgd2lsbCBub3QgYWNjZXB0IGFueSBwcm90b2NvbCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHdp dGhvdXQgYQ0KPiAgICBjb25zaXN0ZW50IHNlY3VyaXR5IHNlY3Rpb24gKElPVzogd2F5IG1vcmUg dGhhbiB3aGF0IHdlDQo+ICAgIGN1cnJlbnRseSBoYXZlKSBhbHRob3VnaCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgc29t ZSBhcmd1bWVudHMgb24gd2hldGhlcg0KPiAgICB3ZSBuZWVkIHRoZSBzZWN1cml0eSBtZWNoYW5p c21zIGluIHRoZSBiYXNlIHNwZWMuDQo+IA0KPiAgICBBcm5vIGFuZCBab25nIE5pbmcgcHJvcG9z ZWQgc29tZSB0ZXh0IGFuZCB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvIGFncmVlL2FtZW5kDQo+ICAgIGl0IGFzYXAgc28g dG8gdXBkYXRlIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4gSSdkIGxpa2UgdG8gY2xvc2UgdGhpcyBvbmUgYW5kDQo+ICAg IGhhdmUgYSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQgZm9yIG5leHQgbWVldGluZy4NCj4gDQo+ IDMuIFRyYWNrZXIgUHJvdG9jb2wNCj4gICAgQWZ0ZXIgSUVURjgzIHdlIGFncmVlZCB0byBzcGxp dCBpbnRvIHR3byBkaXN0aW5jdCBkcmFmdHM6IGJhc2UNCj4gICAgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBhbmQg b3B0aW9uYWwgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucy4NCj4gDQo+ICAgIEF1dGhvcnMsIGl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGdvb2Qg dG8gaGF2ZSBhIGZpcnN0IHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gYmVmb3JlIG5leHQNCj4gICAgbWVldGluZy4NCj4g DQo+IDQuIFN1cnZleSBkcmFmdC4NCj4gICAgV2UgbmVlZCB0byByZWZyZXNoL3JlLXN1Ym1pdCBh bmQgdGhlIGNoYWlycyBwcm9wb3NlZCB0aGUNCj4gICAgYXV0aG9ycy9lZGl0b3JzIHRvIGluY2x1 ZGUgYSBzZWN0aW9uIG9uIGRlcGxveW1lbnQgZXhwZXJpZW5jZXMNCj4gICAgYW5kIG1vcmUgcHJl Y2lzZWx5IG9uIGNodW5rIGFkZHJlc3NpbmcgYW5kIHNlY3VyaXR5IG1lY2hhbmlzbXMuDQo+ICAg IEhvcGVmdWxseSB0aGlzIHdpbGwgYWxzbyBmZWVkIG9uZ29pbmcgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMuDQo+IA0K PiA1LiBNZWV0aW5nIGR1cmluZyBJRVRGODQuDQo+ICAgIFdlIGhhdmUgcmVxdWVzdGVkIGEgc2xv dCBmb3IgVmFuY291dmVyIG1lZXRpbmcuIEFueW9uZQ0KPiAgICBpbnRlcmVzdGVkLCBwbGVhc2Ug cmVxdWVzdCBhbiBhZ2VuZGEgc2xvdCBhc2FwIHRvIFl1bmZlaSBvcg0KPiAgICBteXNlbGYuDQo+ IA0KPiBMZXQgdXMga25vdyBpZiBhbnl0aGluZyBpcyBtaXNzaW5nLg0KPiANCj4gVGhhbmtzLg0K PiANCj4gU3RlZmFubyAmIFl1bmZlaQ0KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBwcHNwIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBwcHNwQGlldGYub3JnDQo+ IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vcHBzcA0KX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCnBwc3AgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpw cHNwQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3Bwc3A= ------=_001_NextPart304285203034_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
Thanks Fabio. That will be good in making the protocol solid. Looking= =20 forward to your result.
 
 
BR
Yunfei
 
 
 
zhangyunfei
 
Date: 2012-06-07 21:02
To: ppsp
Subject: Re: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update
I will do some simulations to determine=  which chunk addressing mechanism performs b= est in the average case.
 
Fabio
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@= ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> stefano previdi
> Sent: lundi 4 juin 2012 11:39
> To: ppsp; zhangyunfei Zhang
> Subject: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update
> 
> All,
> 
> here are some notes i preparation&= nbsp;of the next PPSP meeting we're going
> to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.o= rg/meeting/84/index.html)
> 
> 1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressin= g mechanism
>    We currently have two = ;proposals that I'd try to name as:
> . Bin Notation
> . Ranges
>    Both proposals have been&n= bsp;discussed in the mailing list and it
>    looks to me we're NOT=  achieving agreement/consensus on any of
>    them also due to lack=  of participation of the WG into the
>    discussion (other than the=  authors of each proposal).
> 
>    Therefore, as of today,&nb= sp;we can reasonably explore the
>    following options:
>    Option-1: We propose both&= nbsp;solutions in the peer protocol
>           = ;   specification and we define them&nb= sp;both MANDATORY so
>           = ;   to cope with interoperability issue= s.
>    Option-2: we select one&nb= sp;option through a WG vote (this is my=
>           = ;   least preferred option).
> 
>    Since I'd really prefer&nb= sp;to avoid Option-2, I can only consider
>    the "dual" specification. = WG opinion on this is requested.
> 
>    Again, it would be ve= ry beneficial to the WG if current
>    implementors of streaming = protocols would/could speak-up and
>    give their opinion (see&nb= sp;point 4 below).
> 
> 2. Peer Protocol - Security Sectio= n
>    The IESG will not acc= ept any protocol specification without a
>    consistent security section&nbs= p;(IOW: way more than what we
>    currently have) although t= here are some arguments on whether
>    we need the security = mechanisms in the base spec.
> 
>    Arno and Zong Ning pr= oposed some text and we need to agree/a= mend
>    it asap so to update&= nbsp;the draft. I'd like to close this = one and
>    have a new version of=  the draft for next meeting.
> 
> 3. Tracker Protocol
>    After IETF83 we agreed&nbs= p;to split into two distinct drafts: base
>    specification and optional = ;extensions.
> 
>    Authors, it would be = good to have a first submission before = next
>    meeting.
> 
> 4. Survey draft.
>    We need to refresh/re-subm= it and the chairs proposed the
>    authors/editors to include = ;a section on deployment experiences
>    and more precisely on = ;chunk addressing and security mechanisms.
>    Hopefully this will also&n= bsp;feed ongoing discussions.
> 
> 5. Meeting during IETF84.
>    We have requested a s= lot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone
>    interested, please request = ;an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or
>    myself.
> 
> Let us know if anything is mi= ssing.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Stefano & Yunfei
> _______________________________________________
> 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_NextPart304285203034_=------ From Fabio.Picconi@technicolor.com Thu Jun 14 04:42:54 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 8E57C21F859A for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:42:54 -0700 (PDT) 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 P1CmEZb0P+Rb for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:42:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog109.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog109.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD6521F85D4 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mopesedge02.eu.thmulti.com ([129.35.174.203]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob109.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT9nOPDloX4s/Mx36uR2CU+eJr4/0YRE/@postini.com; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:42:53 PDT 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; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:39:52 +0200 Received: from MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com ([169.254.1.96]) by MOPESMAILHC03.eu.thmulti.com ([141.11.100.132]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:40:00 +0200 From: Picconi Fabio To: ppsp Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:39:58 +0200 Thread-Topic: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update Thread-Index: Ac1CNe5vI5NrTcnCSxSGHBhGVcqj/ACd6vGgAVycovA= Message-ID: <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204F1ACE35E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> References: <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204EFAD04EF@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> In-Reply-To: <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204EFAD04EF@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> 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] PPSP WG Update 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, 14 Jun 2012 11:42:54 -0000 Today I had some time to simulate the average cases overhead of the two chu= nk addressing mechanisms we've been discussing. However, before I started c= oding, the following popped into my mind: As Arno pointed out before, if we assume that a peer sends very few updates= per second to its neighbors, e.g., it waits until it receives 32K of conti= guous data before notifying its neighbors, then the update traffic for a 1 = Mbps stream is negligible (less than 1%) regardless of the chunk addressing= mechanism. Conversely, if a peer sends an update message to its neighbors for every ch= unk it receives, then the overhead is the same for bins or range lists, as = each notification refers to a single chunk. There is a trade-off between these two possibilities: in a live streaming a= pplication, delaying updates until one receives a full 32K block (to save s= ignaling bandwidth) increases the chunk delivery delay. Notice, however, th= at the chunk addressing mechanism seems to be irrelevant. In a progressive download application the diffusion delay is not an issue s= ince the download rate is higher than the playback rate. So I guess the question again is: what do we gain by using bins instead of = range lists? Fabio > -----Original Message----- > From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Picconi Fabio > Sent: jeudi 7 juin 2012 15:02 > To: ppsp > Subject: Re: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update >=20 > I will do some simulations to determine which chunk addressing > mechanism performs best in the average case. >=20 > Fabio >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of stefano previdi > > Sent: lundi 4 juin 2012 11:39 > > To: ppsp; zhangyunfei Zhang > > Subject: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update > > > > All, > > > > here are some notes i preparation of the next PPSP meeting we're > going > > to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html) > > > > 1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism > > We currently have two proposals that I'd try to name as: > > . Bin Notation > > . Ranges > > Both proposals have been discussed in the mailing list and it > > looks to me we're NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any of > > them also due to lack of participation of the WG into the > > discussion (other than the authors of each proposal). > > > > Therefore, as of today, we can reasonably explore the > > following options: > > Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer protocol > > specification and we define them both MANDATORY so > > to cope with interoperability issues. > > Option-2: we select one option through a WG vote (this is my > > least preferred option). > > > > Since I'd really prefer to avoid Option-2, I can only consider > > the "dual" specification. WG opinion on this is requested. > > > > Again, it would be very beneficial to the WG if current > > implementors of streaming protocols would/could speak-up and > > give their opinion (see point 4 below). > > > > 2. Peer Protocol - Security Section > > The IESG will not accept any protocol specification without a > > consistent security section (IOW: way more than what we > > currently have) although there are some arguments on whether > > we need the security mechanisms in the base spec. > > > > Arno and Zong Ning proposed some text and we need to agree/amend > > it asap so to update the draft. I'd like to close this one and > > have a new version of the draft for next meeting. > > > > 3. Tracker Protocol > > After IETF83 we agreed to split into two distinct drafts: base > > specification and optional extensions. > > > > Authors, it would be good to have a first submission before next > > meeting. > > > > 4. Survey draft. > > We need to refresh/re-submit and the chairs proposed the > > authors/editors to include a section on deployment experiences > > and more precisely on chunk addressing and security mechanisms. > > Hopefully this will also feed ongoing discussions. > > > > 5. Meeting during IETF84. > > We have requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone > > interested, please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or > > myself. > > > > Let us know if anything is missing. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Stefano & Yunfei > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Thu Jun 14 20:24:56 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 6586611E80B6 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:24:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.323 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, 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 h4OBRbpRznBm for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:24:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCA511E8089 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DAC4E6DB; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:24:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134B4E6EA; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:24:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from zyf-PC ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012061511245050-26568 ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:24:50 +0800 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:24:44 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: "Picconi Fabio" , ppsp References: <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204EFAD04EF@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>, <320C4182454E96478DC039F2C481987204F1ACE35E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2012061511244438302521@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-15 11:24:50, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-15 11:24:51, Serialize complete at 2012-06-15 11:24:51 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart507560517805_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18970.004 X-TM-AS-Result: No--42.247-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--42.247-7.0-31-10;No--42.247-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Subject: Re: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update 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: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:24:56 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart507560517805_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" SSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBzZWxlY3Rpb24gb2YgdXBkYXRpbmcgdGhlIGNodW5rIGF2YWlsYWJp bGl0eSBpbiBhbiBhY2N1bXVsYXRlZCB3YXkuIEl0J3MgYSByZWFzb25hYmxlIGNob2ljZSBldmVu IGluIGEgbGl2ZSBzdHJlYW1pbmcgc2NlbmFyaW8gYmVjYXVzZSBhbiB1bnBsYXlhYmxlIGNodW5r IGFkZGl0aW9uIGluIHRoZSByZWNlaXZlciBpcyBub3QgdXNlZnVsIGZvciB0aGUgdmlld2VyIHRv IHdhdGNoIG1vcmUgdmlkZW8uICBUaGVyZWZvcmUgYW4gYWdncmVnYXRpb24gb2Ygc29tZSBjaHVu a3MgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gd2l0aG91dCAgYWZmZWN0aW5nIHRoZSB2aWV3aW5nIGlzIGJlc3QuIA0K SW4gZmFjdCwgdGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgc3lzdGVtcyB1c3VhbGx5IHVzZSBhIHBlcmlvZGljYWwgZXhj aGFuZ2UgbWVjaGFuaXNtKCBzYXksIHNldmVyYWwgc2Vjb25kcyBvciBtb3JlKS4NCg0KWXVuZmVp DQoNCg0KDQp6aGFuZ3l1bmZlaQ0KDQpGcm9tOiBQaWNjb25pIEZhYmlvDQpEYXRlOiAyMDEyLTA2 LTE0IDE5OjM5DQpUbzogcHBzcA0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtwcHNwXSBQUFNQIFdHIFVwZGF0ZQ0K VG9kYXkgSSBoYWQgc29tZSB0aW1lIHRvIHNpbXVsYXRlIHRoZSBhdmVyYWdlIGNhc2VzIG92ZXJo ZWFkIG9mIHRoZSB0d28gY2h1bmsgYWRkcmVzc2luZyBtZWNoYW5pc21zIHdlJ3ZlIGJlZW4gZGlz Y3Vzc2luZy4gSG93ZXZlciwgYmVmb3JlIEkgc3RhcnRlZCBjb2RpbmcsIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcg cG9wcGVkIGludG8gbXkgbWluZDoNCg0KQXMgQXJubyBwb2ludGVkIG91dCBiZWZvcmUsIGlmIHdl IGFzc3VtZSB0aGF0IGEgcGVlciBzZW5kcyB2ZXJ5IGZldyB1cGRhdGVzIHBlciBzZWNvbmQgdG8g aXRzIG5laWdoYm9ycywgZS5nLiwgaXQgd2FpdHMgdW50aWwgaXQgcmVjZWl2ZXMgMzJLIG9mIGNv bnRpZ3VvdXMgZGF0YSBiZWZvcmUgbm90aWZ5aW5nIGl0cyBuZWlnaGJvcnMsIHRoZW4gdGhlIHVw ZGF0ZSB0cmFmZmljIGZvciBhIDEgTWJwcyBzdHJlYW0gaXMgbmVnbGlnaWJsZSAobGVzcyB0aGFu IDElKSByZWdhcmRsZXNzIG9mIHRoZSBjaHVuayBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIG1lY2hhbmlzbS4NCg0KQ29u dmVyc2VseSwgaWYgYSBwZWVyIHNlbmRzIGFuIHVwZGF0ZSBtZXNzYWdlIHRvIGl0cyBuZWlnaGJv cnMgZm9yIGV2ZXJ5IGNodW5rIGl0IHJlY2VpdmVzLCB0aGVuIHRoZSBvdmVyaGVhZCBpcyB0aGUg c2FtZSBmb3IgYmlucyBvciByYW5nZSBsaXN0cywgYXMgZWFjaCBub3RpZmljYXRpb24gcmVmZXJz IHRvIGEgc2luZ2xlIGNodW5rLg0KDQpUaGVyZSBpcyBhIHRyYWRlLW9mZiBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZXNl IHR3byBwb3NzaWJpbGl0aWVzOiBpbiBhIGxpdmUgc3RyZWFtaW5nIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9uLCBkZWxh eWluZyB1cGRhdGVzIHVudGlsIG9uZSByZWNlaXZlcyBhIGZ1bGwgMzJLIGJsb2NrICh0byBzYXZl IHNpZ25hbGluZyBiYW5kd2lkdGgpIGluY3JlYXNlcyB0aGUgY2h1bmsgZGVsaXZlcnkgZGVsYXku IE5vdGljZSwgaG93ZXZlciwgdGhhdCB0aGUgY2h1bmsgYWRkcmVzc2luZyBtZWNoYW5pc20gc2Vl bXMgdG8gYmUgaXJyZWxldmFudC4NCg0KSW4gYSBwcm9ncmVzc2l2ZSBkb3dubG9hZCBhcHBsaWNh dGlvbiB0aGUgZGlmZnVzaW9uIGRlbGF5IGlzIG5vdCBhbiBpc3N1ZSBzaW5jZSB0aGUgZG93bmxv YWQgcmF0ZSBpcyBoaWdoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgcGxheWJhY2sgcmF0ZS4NCg0KU28gSSBndWVzcyB0 aGUgcXVlc3Rpb24gYWdhaW4gaXM6IHdoYXQgZG8gd2UgZ2FpbiBieSB1c2luZyBiaW5zIGluc3Rl YWQgb2YgcmFuZ2UgbGlzdHM/DQoNCkZhYmlvDQoNCg0KDQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2Fn ZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206IHBwc3AtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOnBwc3AtYm91bmNl c0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mDQo+IFBpY2NvbmkgRmFiaW8NCj4gU2VudDogamV1ZGkg NyBqdWluIDIwMTIgMTU6MDINCj4gVG86IHBwc3ANCj4gU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtwcHNwXSBQUFNQ IFdHIFVwZGF0ZQ0KPiANCj4gSSB3aWxsIGRvIHNvbWUgc2ltdWxhdGlvbnMgdG8gZGV0ZXJtaW5l IHdoaWNoIGNodW5rIGFkZHJlc3NpbmcNCj4gbWVjaGFuaXNtIHBlcmZvcm1zIGJlc3QgaW4gdGhl IGF2ZXJhZ2UgY2FzZS4NCj4gDQo+IEZhYmlvDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1l c3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiA+IEZyb206IHBwc3AtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOnBwc3At Ym91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxmDQo+ID4gT2Ygc3RlZmFubyBwcmV2aWRpDQo+ID4g U2VudDogbHVuZGkgNCBqdWluIDIwMTIgMTE6MzkNCj4gPiBUbzogcHBzcDsgemhhbmd5dW5mZWkg WmhhbmcNCj4gPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBbcHBzcF0gUFBTUCBXRyBVcGRhdGUNCj4gPg0KPiA+IEFsbCwN Cj4gPg0KPiA+IGhlcmUgYXJlIHNvbWUgbm90ZXMgaSBwcmVwYXJhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgbmV4dCBQ UFNQIG1lZXRpbmcgd2UncmUNCj4gZ29pbmcNCj4gPiB0byBoYXZlIGluIFZhbmNvdXZlciAoaHR0 cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tZWV0aW5nLzg0L2luZGV4Lmh0bWwpDQo+ID4NCj4gPiAxLiBQZWVy IFByb3RvY29sIC0gY2h1bmsgYWRkcmVzc2luZyBtZWNoYW5pc20NCj4gPiAgICBXZSBjdXJyZW50 bHkgaGF2ZSB0d28gcHJvcG9zYWxzIHRoYXQgSSdkIHRyeSB0byBuYW1lIGFzOg0KPiA+IC4gQmlu IE5vdGF0aW9uDQo+ID4gLiBSYW5nZXMNCj4gPiAgICBCb3RoIHByb3Bvc2FscyBoYXZlIGJlZW4g ZGlzY3Vzc2VkIGluIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QgYW5kIGl0DQo+ID4gICAgbG9va3MgdG8gbWUg d2UncmUgTk9UIGFjaGlldmluZyBhZ3JlZW1lbnQvY29uc2Vuc3VzIG9uIGFueSBvZg0KPiA+ICAg IHRoZW0gYWxzbyBkdWUgdG8gbGFjayBvZiBwYXJ0aWNpcGF0aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBXRyBpbnRvIHRo ZQ0KPiA+ICAgIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gKG90aGVyIHRoYW4gdGhlIGF1dGhvcnMgb2YgZWFjaCBwcm9w b3NhbCkuDQo+ID4NCj4gPiAgICBUaGVyZWZvcmUsIGFzIG9mIHRvZGF5LCB3ZSBjYW4gcmVhc29u YWJseSBleHBsb3JlIHRoZQ0KPiA+ICAgIGZvbGxvd2luZyBvcHRpb25zOg0KPiA+ICAgIE9wdGlv bi0xOiBXZSBwcm9wb3NlIGJvdGggc29sdXRpb25zIGluIHRoZSBwZWVyIHByb3RvY29sDQo+ID4g ICAgICAgICAgICAgIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gYW5kIHdlIGRlZmluZSB0aGVtIGJvdGggTUFOREFU T1JZIHNvDQo+ID4gICAgICAgICAgICAgIHRvIGNvcGUgd2l0aCBpbnRlcm9wZXJhYmlsaXR5IGlz c3Vlcy4NCj4gPiAgICBPcHRpb24tMjogd2Ugc2VsZWN0IG9uZSBvcHRpb24gdGhyb3VnaCBhIFdH IHZvdGUgKHRoaXMgaXMgbXkNCj4gPiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgbGVhc3QgcHJlZmVycmVkIG9wdGlv bikuDQo+ID4NCj4gPiAgICBTaW5jZSBJJ2QgcmVhbGx5IHByZWZlciB0byBhdm9pZCBPcHRpb24t MiwgSSBjYW4gb25seSBjb25zaWRlcg0KPiA+ICAgIHRoZSAiZHVhbCIgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbi4g V0cgb3BpbmlvbiBvbiB0aGlzIGlzIHJlcXVlc3RlZC4NCj4gPg0KPiA+ICAgIEFnYWluLCBpdCB3 b3VsZCBiZSB2ZXJ5IGJlbmVmaWNpYWwgdG8gdGhlIFdHIGlmIGN1cnJlbnQNCj4gPiAgICBpbXBs ZW1lbnRvcnMgb2Ygc3RyZWFtaW5nIHByb3RvY29scyB3b3VsZC9jb3VsZCBzcGVhay11cCBhbmQN Cj4gPiAgICBnaXZlIHRoZWlyIG9waW5pb24gKHNlZSBwb2ludCA0IGJlbG93KS4NCj4gPg0KPiA+ IDIuIFBlZXIgUHJvdG9jb2wgLSBTZWN1cml0eSBTZWN0aW9uDQo+ID4gICAgVGhlIElFU0cgd2ls bCBub3QgYWNjZXB0IGFueSBwcm90b2NvbCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHdpdGhvdXQgYQ0KPiA+ICAg IGNvbnNpc3RlbnQgc2VjdXJpdHkgc2VjdGlvbiAoSU9XOiB3YXkgbW9yZSB0aGFuIHdoYXQgd2UN Cj4gPiAgICBjdXJyZW50bHkgaGF2ZSkgYWx0aG91Z2ggdGhlcmUgYXJlIHNvbWUgYXJndW1lbnRz IG9uIHdoZXRoZXINCj4gPiAgICB3ZSBuZWVkIHRoZSBzZWN1cml0eSBtZWNoYW5pc21zIGluIHRo ZSBiYXNlIHNwZWMuDQo+ID4NCj4gPiAgICBBcm5vIGFuZCBab25nIE5pbmcgcHJvcG9zZWQgc29t ZSB0ZXh0IGFuZCB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvIGFncmVlL2FtZW5kDQo+ID4gICAgaXQgYXNhcCBzbyB0byB1 cGRhdGUgdGhlIGRyYWZ0LiBJJ2QgbGlrZSB0byBjbG9zZSB0aGlzIG9uZSBhbmQNCj4gPiAgICBo YXZlIGEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgdGhlIGRyYWZ0IGZvciBuZXh0IG1lZXRpbmcuDQo+ID4NCj4g PiAzLiBUcmFja2VyIFByb3RvY29sDQo+ID4gICAgQWZ0ZXIgSUVURjgzIHdlIGFncmVlZCB0byBz cGxpdCBpbnRvIHR3byBkaXN0aW5jdCBkcmFmdHM6IGJhc2UNCj4gPiAgICBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9u IGFuZCBvcHRpb25hbCBleHRlbnNpb25zLg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gICAgQXV0aG9ycywgaXQgd291bGQg YmUgZ29vZCB0byBoYXZlIGEgZmlyc3Qgc3VibWlzc2lvbiBiZWZvcmUgbmV4dA0KPiA+ICAgIG1l ZXRpbmcuDQo+ID4NCj4gPiA0LiBTdXJ2ZXkgZHJhZnQuDQo+ID4gICAgV2UgbmVlZCB0byByZWZy ZXNoL3JlLXN1Ym1pdCBhbmQgdGhlIGNoYWlycyBwcm9wb3NlZCB0aGUNCj4gPiAgICBhdXRob3Jz L2VkaXRvcnMgdG8gaW5jbHVkZSBhIHNlY3Rpb24gb24gZGVwbG95bWVudCBleHBlcmllbmNlcw0K PiA+ICAgIGFuZCBtb3JlIHByZWNpc2VseSBvbiBjaHVuayBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIGFuZCBzZWN1cml0 eSBtZWNoYW5pc21zLg0KPiA+ICAgIEhvcGVmdWxseSB0aGlzIHdpbGwgYWxzbyBmZWVkIG9uZ29p bmcgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMuDQo+ID4NCj4gPiA1LiBNZWV0aW5nIGR1cmluZyBJRVRGODQuDQo+ID4g ICAgV2UgaGF2ZSByZXF1ZXN0ZWQgYSBzbG90IGZvciBWYW5jb3V2ZXIgbWVldGluZy4gQW55b25l DQo+ID4gICAgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCwgcGxlYXNlIHJlcXVlc3QgYW4gYWdlbmRhIHNsb3QgYXNhcCB0 byBZdW5mZWkgb3INCj4gPiAgICBteXNlbGYuDQo+ID4NCj4gPiBMZXQgdXMga25vdyBpZiBhbnl0 aGluZyBpcyBtaXNzaW5nLg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gVGhhbmtzLg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gU3RlZmFubyAmIFl1 bmZlaQ0KPiA+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f DQo+ID4gcHBzcCBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gPiBwcHNwQGlldGYub3JnDQo+ID4gaHR0cHM6Ly93 d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9wcHNwDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IHBwc3AgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IHBwc3BA aWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9wcHNwDQpf X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KcHBzcCBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QNCnBwc3BAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlz dGluZm8vcHBzcA== ------=_001_NextPart507560517805_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
I agree with the selection of updating the chunk availability in an=20 accumulated way. It's a reasonable choice even in a live streaming scenari= o=20 because an unplayable chunk addition in the receiver is not useful fo= r the=20 viewer to watch more video.  Therefore an aggregation of so= me=20 chunks information without  affecting the viewing is best.
In fact, the current systems usually use a periodical exchange mechan= ism(=20 say, several seconds or more).
 
Yunfei
zhangyunfei
 
Date: 2012-06-14 19:39
To: ppsp
Subject: Re: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update
Today I had some time to simulate = the average cases overhead of the two c= hunk addressing mechanisms we've been discussing.=  However, before I started coding, the = following popped into my mind:
 
As Arno pointed out before, if we = assume that a peer sends very few updat= es per second to its neighbors, e.g., i= t waits until it receives 32K of contig= uous data before notifying its neighbors, th= en the update traffic for a 1 Mbps = ;stream is negligible (less than 1%) regardl= ess of the chunk addressing mechanism.
 
Conversely, if a peer sends an update&n= bsp;message to its neighbors for every chunk=  it receives, then the overhead is the&= nbsp;same for bins or range lists, as e= ach notification refers to a single chunk.
 
There is a trade-off between these two&= nbsp;possibilities: in a live streaming applicati= on, delaying updates until one receives a&nb= sp;full 32K block (to save signaling bandwid= th) increases the chunk delivery delay. Noti= ce, however, that the chunk addressing mecha= nism seems to be irrelevant.
 
In a progressive download application the&nb= sp;diffusion delay is not an issue since&nbs= p;the download rate is higher than the = playback rate.
 
So I guess the question again is: = what do we gain by using bins instead&n= bsp;of range lists?
 
Fabio
 
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ppsp-bounces@= ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Picconi Fabio
> Sent: jeudi 7 juin 2012 15:02
> To: ppsp
> Subject: Re: [ppsp] PPSP WG Update=
> 
> I will do some simulations to = ;determine which chunk addressing
> mechanism performs best in the ave= rage case.
> 
> Fabio
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ppsp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pps= p-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of stefano previdi
> > Sent: lundi 4 juin 2012 = 11:39
> > To: ppsp; zhangyunfei Zhang
> > Subject: [ppsp] PPSP WG Updat= e
> >
> > All,
> >
> > here are some notes i pr= eparation of the next PPSP meeting we're
> going
> > to have in Vancouver (http://= www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html)
> >
> > 1. Peer Protocol - chunk = ;addressing mechanism
> >    We currently have&nbs= p;two proposals that I'd try to name as= :
> > . Bin Notation
> > . Ranges
> >    Both proposals have&n= bsp;been discussed in the mailing list and&n= bsp;it
> >    looks to me we'r= e NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any o= f
> >    them also due to=  lack of participation of the WG into&n= bsp;the
> >    discussion (other tha= n the authors of each proposal).
> >
> >    Therefore, as of = ;today, we can reasonably explore the
> >    following options:
> >    Option-1: We propose&= nbsp;both solutions in the peer protocol
> >         &= nbsp;    specification and we define&nb= sp;them both MANDATORY so
> >         &= nbsp;    to cope with interoperability&= nbsp;issues.
> >    Option-2: we select&n= bsp;one option through a WG vote (this = is my
> >         &= nbsp;    least preferred option).
> >
> >    Since I'd really = ;prefer to avoid Option-2, I can only c= onsider
> >    the "dual" specificat= ion. WG opinion on this is requested.
> >
> >    Again, it would = be very beneficial to the WG if current=
> >    implementors of strea= ming protocols would/could speak-up and
> >    give their opinion&nb= sp;(see point 4 below).
> >
> > 2. Peer Protocol - Security&n= bsp;Section
> >    The IESG will no= t accept any protocol specification without = a
> >    consistent security s= ection (IOW: way more than what we
> >    currently have) altho= ugh there are some arguments on whether
> >    we need the secu= rity mechanisms in the base spec.
> >
> >    Arno and Zong Ni= ng proposed some text and we need to&nb= sp;agree/amend
> >    it asap so to&nb= sp;update the draft. I'd like to close = this one and
> >    have a new versi= on of the draft for next meeting.
> >
> > 3. Tracker Protocol
> >    After IETF83 we = agreed to split into two distinct drafts:&nb= sp;base
> >    specification and opt= ional extensions.
> >
> >    Authors, it would&nbs= p;be good to have a first submission be= fore next
> >    meeting.
> >
> > 4. Survey draft.
> >    We need to refre= sh/re-submit and the chairs proposed the
> >    authors/editors to in= clude a section on deployment experiences
> >    and more precisely&nb= sp;on chunk addressing and security mechanisms.
> >    Hopefully this will&n= bsp;also feed ongoing discussions.
> >
> > 5. Meeting during IETF84.
> >    We have requested&nbs= p;a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone
> >    interested, please re= quest an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or<= /DIV>
> >    myself.
> >
> > Let us know if anything = is missing.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Stefano & Yunfei
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
------=_001_NextPart507560517805_=------ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jun 19 23:04:20 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 1676A21F8747; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:04:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.428 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, 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 pdU7QG6IAV9i; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB2321F873D; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:04:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.20 Message-ID: <20120620060416.20536.93957.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:04:16 -0700 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:10:14 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-02.txt 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: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:04:21 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Peer to Peer Streaming Protocol Working G= roup of the IETF. Title : Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP) Author(s) : Arno Bakker Riccardo Petrocco Filename : draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-02.txt Pages : 56 Date : 2012-06-19 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 datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-02 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-02 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:23:22 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 8C7E921F8704 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:23:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 ARnIh3daBZUP for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gamay.tools.ietf.org (gamay.tools.ietf.org [208.66.40.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C693721F865C for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=gamay.tools.ietf.org) by gamay.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFG2-0003cu-E5; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:23:18 -0400 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:23:18 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/26#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.c3818366acf4e2fe54381e783f0b791a@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.2f31acaec7469ccd36319bc414e86273@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 26 In-Reply-To: <052.2f31acaec7469ccd36319bc414e86273@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-Message-Id: <20120620072321.C693721F865C@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:29:16 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [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, 20 Jun 2012 07:23:22 -0000 #26: Evaluate the handshake procedure if it needs strengthening against "state- building attacks"? Changes (by arno@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Security evaluation and some minor improvements added in -02. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:26:22 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 2B8A121F8705 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:26:22 -0700 (PDT) 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 LETntVuyq0Tc for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69AA821F8704 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54729 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFIj-0001tq-DX; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:26:05 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:26:05 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/13#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.ca997fd8ca8f15b26af628fd3e4a874a@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.7aa07ba17eebac3990438d28d69d0529@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 13 In-Reply-To: <052.7aa07ba17eebac3990438d28d69d0529@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620072621.69AA821F8704@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:29:16 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [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, 20 Jun 2012 07:26:22 -0000 #13: Allow for multiple content addressing schemes Changes (by arno@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Multiple schemes now possible and dependencies explained in -02. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:27:20 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 AA3A521F8705 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:27:20 -0700 (PDT) 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 3ckW5sdkeHb2 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0534421F8710 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54754 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFJt-0001xS-I8; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:27:17 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:27:17 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/26#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.ba2728c42e6c8efb01aa4fca2bf68da6@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.2f31acaec7469ccd36319bc414e86273@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 26 In-Reply-To: <052.2f31acaec7469ccd36319bc414e86273@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620072720.0534421F8710@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:29:16 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [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, 20 Jun 2012 07:27:20 -0000 #26: Evaluate the handshake procedure if it needs strengthening against "state- building attacks"? Changes (by arno@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Security evaluation and minor improvements added to -02. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:27:59 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 8A11621F8707 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:27:59 -0700 (PDT) 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 FmoZ-PNDswwc for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 022C721F8705 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54768 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFKW-0001yN-P3; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:27:56 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:27:56 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/17#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.ea7ff762669066e26c72ef9090d75fd4@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.00142fc93bf68c33bab6a98e02a7eb3f@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 17 In-Reply-To: <052.00142fc93bf68c33bab6a98e02a7eb3f@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620072759.022C721F8705@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:29:16 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [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, 20 Jun 2012 07:27:59 -0000 #17: How to formulate behaviour of Peer-Exchange messages? Changes (by arno@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Recent has been defined as "in the last 60 seconds". -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Wed Jun 20 00:53:53 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 9539B21F86BE for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:53:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, 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 HjjsDUjMhvIU for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1109221F85F7 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7733CE60B; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:53:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D03E5E4; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:53:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from zyf-PC ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012062015092877-11125 ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:09:28 +0800 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:09:25 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: "arno@cs.vu.nl" , "Riccardo (r.petrocco@gmail.com)" References: <20120620060416.20536.93957.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2012062015092544515442@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-20 15:09:28, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-20 15:53:49, Serialize complete at 2012-06-20 15:53:49 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart585374371356_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18982.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--24.157-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--24.157-7.0-31-10;No--24.157-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Cc: ppsp Subject: Re: [ppsp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-02.txt 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: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:53:53 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart585374371356_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" SGkgQXJubyBhbmQgUmljY2FyZG8gKFNwZWFraW5nIGluZGl2aWR1YWxseSksDQogICAgRHVlIHRv IGEgZm9sbG93aW5nIGhvbGlkYXkgc3RhcnRlZCBmcm9tIHRvbW9ycm93LCBJIGhhdmUgYSBxdWlj ayByZWFkIG9uIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4gVGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBpcyBteSBjb21tZW50cy4gSSdsbCBy ZXBseSB0aGUgZW1haWxzIHVudGlsIG5leHQgd2Vlay4NCg0KMSkgSW4gZ2VuZXJhbCwgdGhpcyB2 ZXJzaW9uIGlzIG11Y2ggYmV0dGVyIHRoYW4gbGFzdCB2ZXJzaW9uIGluIHRoZSBzZW5zZSBvZiBh biBJRVRGIGRyYWZ0LCBpbnN0ZWFkIG9mIGEgcGFwZXIgb3IgYSB0ZWNobmljYWwgcmVwb3J0IGZv ciB0aGUgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb24uIEkgbWVhbiB0aGUgZ2VuZXJhbGl0eSBpcyBiZXR0ZXIuDQoy KSAgYmluIG51bWJlcnMgaW4gMXN0IHBhcmFncmFwaDogU2luY2UgdGhlcmUgYXJlIGF0IGxlYXN0 IHR3byBzY2hlbWVzIGludHJvZHVjZWQgaW4gc2VjdGlvbiA0LCB0aGUgcmFuZ2Ugc2NoZW1lIHNo b3VsZCBiZSBzdGF0ZWQgaGVyZSBhcyB3ZWxsLg0KMylNZXJrbGUgaGFzaCB0cmVlIGluIHNlY3Rp b24gMi4yo7pPY2N1ciBmb3IgdGhlIGZpcnN0IHRpbWUgd2l0aG91dCBleHBsYWluaW5nIGJlZm9y ZS5JdCdzIGJldHRlciB0byBhZGQgdGhlIHRlcm0gaW4gc2VjdGlvbiAxLjMuDQo0KUlOVEVHUklU WSBpbiBzZWN0aW9uIDIuMjogSXQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHN0YXRlZCB0aGF0IHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBp cyBub3QgdXNlZCBhbGwgdGhlIHRpbWUuDQo1KVNlY3Rpb24zLjOjuiBUaGUgc2VudGVuY2UgIml0 IE1VU1Qgc2VuZCBhIEFDSyBtZXNzYWdlIGNvbnRhaW5pbmcgYSBjaHVuayBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9u IGZvciBDIi4gTVVTVCBvciBTSE9VTEQuDQo2KVNlY3Rpb24gMy45LCBzaW5jZSBUQ1AgaXMgYWJh bmRvbmVkIGJ5IFBQU1BQLCBkbyB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvIGV4cGxhaW4gdGhlIHJlbGF0ZWQgY2FzZT8N CjcpICBTZWN0aW9uIDQuMyBQRVhfQURELCBubyBleHBsYW5hdGlvbiBiZWZvcmUuDQo4KVNlY3Rp b24gNjogSSBzdWdnZXN0IHRvIGV4Y2x1ZGUgdGhpcyBzZWN0aW9uICBiZWNhdXNlIGl0IGludm9s dmVzIGEgb3Zlci1zdHJvbmcgbGltaXRhdGlvbjpmaXhlZCBjaHVuayBzaXplLkZ1cnRoZXJtb3Jl IEkgYW0gbm90IGNsZWFyIG9mIHRoZSBuZWNlc3NpdHkgb2YgdGhpcyBzY2hlbWUuSnVzdCBhcyB0 aGUgYmFja2dyb3VuZCBvZiBzZWN0aW9uIDc/DQo5KSBTZWN0aW9uIDc6Zm9yIHRoZSBzaW1pbGFy IHJlYXNvbiwgcmVtb3ZlIHRoZSBzZWN0aW9uIDcuMS4xDQoxMClTZWN0aW9uIDkuMy4yLCB3aHkg cGxhY2VkIGhlcmU/IEkgc3VnZ2VzdCB0byByZW1vdmUgdGhpcyBzZWN0aW9uLiANCg0KQlINCll1 bmZlaQ0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCnpoYW5neXVuZmVpDQoNCkZyb206IGludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cw0KRGF0 ZTogMjAxMi0wNi0yMCAxNDowNA0KVG86IGktZC1hbm5vdW5jZQ0KQ0M6IHBwc3ANClN1YmplY3Q6 IFtwcHNwXSBJLUQgQWN0aW9uOiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBwc3AtcGVlci1wcm90b2NvbC0wMi50eHQN Cg0KQSBOZXcgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnQgaXMgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGZyb20gdGhlIG9uLWxpbmUgSW50 ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnRzIGRpcmVjdG9yaWVzLg0KIFRoaXMgZHJhZnQgaXMgYSB3b3JrIGl0ZW0gb2Yg dGhlIFBlZXIgdG8gUGVlciBTdHJlYW1pbmcgUHJvdG9jb2wgV29ya2luZyBHcm91cCBvZiB0aGUg SUVURi4NCg0KVGl0bGUgICAgICAgICAgIDogUGVlci10by1QZWVyIFN0cmVhbWluZyBQZWVyIFBy b3RvY29sIChQUFNQUCkNCkF1dGhvcihzKSAgICAgICA6IEFybm8gQmFra2VyDQogICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFJpY2NhcmRvIFBldHJvY2NvDQpGaWxlbmFtZSAgICAgICAgOiBkcmFm dC1pZXRmLXBwc3AtcGVlci1wcm90b2NvbC0wMi50eHQNClBhZ2VzICAgICAgICAgICA6IDU2DQpE YXRlICAgICAgICAgICAgOiAyMDEyLTA2LTE5DQoNCkFic3RyYWN0Og0KICAgVGhlIFBlZXItdG8t UGVlciBTdHJlYW1pbmcgUGVlciBQcm90b2NvbCAoUFBTUFApIGlzIGEgcGVlci10by1wZWVyDQog ICBiYXNlZCB0cmFuc3BvcnQgcHJvdG9jb2wgZm9yIGNvbnRlbnQgZGlzc2VtaW5hdGlvbi4gIEl0 IGNhbiBiZSB1c2VkDQogICBmb3Igc3RyZWFtaW5nIG9uLWRlbWFuZCBhbmQgbGl2ZSB2aWRlbyBj b250ZW50LCBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzDQogICBjb252ZW50aW9uYWwgZG93bmxvYWRpbmcuICBJbiBQUFNQ UCwgdGhlIGNsaWVudHMgY29uc3VtaW5nIHRoZQ0KICAgY29udGVudCBwYXJ0aWNpcGF0ZSBpbiB0 aGUgZGlzc2VtaW5hdGlvbiBieSBmb3J3YXJkaW5nIHRoZSBjb250ZW50IHRvDQogICBvdGhlciBj bGllbnRzIHZpYSBhIG1lc2gtbGlrZSBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUuICBJdCBpcyBhIGdlbmVyaWMgcHJvdG9j b2wNCiAgIHdoaWNoIGNhbiBydW4gZGlyZWN0bHkgb24gdG9wIG9mIFVEUCwgVENQLCBvciBhcyBh IFJUUCBwcm9maWxlLg0KICAgRmVhdHVyZXMgb2YgUFBTUFAgYXJlIHNob3J0IHRpbWUtdGlsbC1w bGF5YmFjayBhbmQgZXh0ZW5zaWJpbGl0eS4NCiAgIEhlbmNlLCBpdCBjYW4gdXNlIGRpZmZlcmVu dCBtZWNoYW5pc21zIHRvIHByZXZlbnQgZnJlZXJpZGluZywgYW5kDQogICB3b3JrIHdpdGggZGlm ZmVyZW50IHBlZXIgZGlzY292ZXJ5IHNjaGVtZXMgKGNlbnRyYWxpemVkIHRyYWNrZXJzIG9yDQog ICBEaXN0cmlidXRlZCBIYXNoIFRhYmxlcykuICBEZXBlbmRpbmcgb24gdGhlIHVuZGVybHlpbmcg dHJhbnNwb3J0DQogICBwcm90b2NvbCwgUFBTUFAgY2FuIGFsc28gdXNlIGRpZmZlcmVudCBjb25n ZXN0aW9uIGNvbnRyb2wgYWxnb3JpdGhtcywNCiAgIHN1Y2ggYXMgTEVEQkFULCBhbmQgb2ZmZXIg dHJhbnNwYXJlbnQgTkFUIHRyYXZlcnNhbC4gIEZpbmFsbHksIFBQU1BQDQogICBtYWludGFpbnMg b25seSBhIHNtYWxsIGFtb3VudCBvZiBzdGF0ZSBwZXIgcGVlciBhbmQgZGV0ZWN0cyBtYWxpY2lv dXMNCiAgIG1vZGlmaWNhdGlvbiBvZiBjb250ZW50LiAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudHMgZGVzY3JpYmVz IFBQU1BQIGFuZCBob3cgaXQNCiAgIHNhdGlzZmllcyB0aGUgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGZvciB0aGUg SUVURiBQZWVyLXRvLVBlZXIgU3RyZWFtaW5nDQogICBQcm90b2NvbCAoUFBTUCkgV29ya2luZyBH cm91cCdzIHBlZXIgcHJvdG9jb2wuDQoNCg0KVGhlIElFVEYgZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIgc3RhdHVzIHBh Z2UgZm9yIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgaXM6DQpodHRwczovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9k cmFmdC1pZXRmLXBwc3AtcGVlci1wcm90b2NvbA0KDQpUaGVyZSdzIGFsc28gYSBodG1saXplZCB2 ZXJzaW9uIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdDoNCmh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWll dGYtcHBzcC1wZWVyLXByb3RvY29sLTAyDQoNCkEgZGlmZiBmcm9tIHByZXZpb3VzIHZlcnNpb24g aXMgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0Og0KaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJsMj1kcmFm dC1pZXRmLXBwc3AtcGVlci1wcm90b2NvbC0wMg0KDQoNCkludGVybmV0LURyYWZ0cyBhcmUgYWxz byBhdmFpbGFibGUgYnkgYW5vbnltb3VzIEZUUCBhdDoNCmZ0cDovL2Z0cC5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRl cm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fDQpwcHNwIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KcHBzcEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9wcHNw ------=_001_NextPart585374371356_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Hi=20 Arno and Riccardo (Speaking individually),
   =20 Due to a following holiday started from tomorrow, I have a quick read on t= he=20 draft. The following is my comments. I'll reply the emails until next=20 week.
 
1)=20 In general, this version is much better than last version in the sense of = an=20 IETF draft, instead of a paper or a technical report for=20 the implementation. I mean the generality is better.
2)  bin numbers in 1st=20 paragraph: Since there are at least two schemes introduced in section 4, t= he=20 range scheme should be stated here as well.
3)Merkle hash tree in section 2.2=A3=BAOccur for the first time = without=20 explaining before.It's better to add the term in section=20 1.3.
4)INTEGRITY in section 2.2: It should be stated that this mes= sage is=20 not used all the time.
5)Section3.3=A3=BA The sentence "it MUST send a ACK message c= ontaining a=20 chunk specification for C". MUST or SHOULD.
6)Section 3.9, since TCP is abandoned by PPSPP, do we need to= explain=20 the related case?
7) =20 Section 4.3 PEX_ADD, no explanation=20 before.
8)Section 6: I suggest to exclude this section  because it= =20 involves a over-strong limitation:fixed chunk size.Furthermore I am not clear= of the=20 necessity of this scheme.Just as the background of section=20 7?
9) Section 7:for the similar reason, remove the section=20 7.1.1
10)Section 9.3.2, why placed here? I suggest to re= move this=20 section. =
 
BR
Yunfei
 
 
zhangyunfei
 
From: internet-drafts
Date: 2012-06-20 14:04
To: i-d-announce
CC: ppsp
Subject: [ppsp] I-D Action:=20 draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-02.txt
 
A New Internet-Draft is available from = the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of = ;the Peer to Peer Streaming Protocol Working=  Group of the IETF.
 
Title          &nbs= p;: Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer Protocol (PPSPP)<= /DIV>
Author(s)       : Arno B= akker
           &nb= sp;            = ;  Riccardo Petrocco
Filename        : draft-= ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-02.txt
Pages          &nbs= p;: 56
Date           = ; : 2012-06-19
 
Abstract:
   The Peer-to-Peer Streaming Peer = ;Protocol (PPSPP) is a peer-to-peer
   based transport protocol for co= ntent dissemination.  It can be used
   for streaming on-demand and liv= e video content, as well as
   conventional downloading.  In P= PSPP, the clients consuming the
   content participate in the diss= emination by forwarding the content to
   other clients via a mesh-like&n= bsp;structure.  It is a generic protocol
   which can run directly on = top of UDP, TCP, or as a RTP profi= le.
   Features of PPSPP are short&nbs= p;time-till-playback and extensibility.
   Hence, it can use different&nbs= p;mechanisms to prevent freeriding, and
   work with different peer discov= ery schemes (centralized trackers or
   Distributed Hash Tables).  Depe= nding on the underlying transport
   protocol, PPSPP can also use&nb= sp;different congestion control algorithms,
   such as LEDBAT, and offer = transparent NAT traversal.  Finally, PPSPP
   maintains only a small amount&n= bsp;of state per peer and detects malicious<= /DIV>
   modification of content.  This&= nbsp;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 datatracker status page for th= is draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol
 
There's also a htmlized version available&nb= sp;at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-02
 
A diff from previous version is availab= le at:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-02=
 
 
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonym= ous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
 
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
------=_001_NextPart585374371356_=------ From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:30:16 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 D625021F871A for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:30:16 -0700 (PDT) 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 UGhdKLwNj2wd for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:30:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0FAC21F86E3 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54831 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFMi-0002Hb-5l; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:30:12 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:30:12 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/20#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.f9200ec28cd8d6b7fe9b75db64ace553@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.d1b7ddd8ab71770c15651edc6fbff2b8@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 20 In-Reply-To: <052.d1b7ddd8ab71770c15651edc6fbff2b8@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620073015.E0FAC21F86E3@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [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, 20 Jun 2012 07:30:17 -0000 #20: Evaluate security implications of PEX. Comment (by arno@…): Security evaluation and solution added to -02. TODO: exact certificates format and certification procedure. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- 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 trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:35:27 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 3D9D721F8724 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:35:27 -0700 (PDT) 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 biWVnj19K48s for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F5921F8717 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54987 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFRg-0005JB-DE; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:35:20 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:35:20 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/10#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.2d674e97ec6fb906d82d0e5dc8706004@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.7c15cd821963634cd709a5db71c30aae@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 10 In-Reply-To: <052.7c15cd821963634cd709a5db71c30aae@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620073524.38F5921F8717@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [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, 20 Jun 2012 07:35:27 -0000 #10: Need to allow for multiple content-integrity protection schemes Changes (by arno@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Multiple schemes now allowed in -02. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:36:06 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 4597C21F871A for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:36:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 w3mQhvwv8iZp for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC1F21F8717 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55006 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFSF-0000OI-2y; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:35:55 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:35:55 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/12#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.a23dba0666155ec1c75f147ca01a7bf7@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.2b48865b53878bfc4446beafed9d778b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 12 In-Reply-To: <052.2b48865b53878bfc4446beafed9d778b@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620073558.AAC1F21F8717@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [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, 20 Jun 2012 07:36:06 -0000 #12: Should we support UNHINTing of chunk requests? Changes (by arno@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: A CANCEL message was added to -02. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:38:59 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 3E17321F8703 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:38:59 -0700 (PDT) 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 o-SdkBGm2qj9 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6906921F86C1 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55047 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFV7-0001dm-MP; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:38:53 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:38:53 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/35 Message-ID: <052.d6367963d989aca31b17742200467658@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 35 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620073858.6906921F86C1@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #35: PPSP.REQ-8: More support needed for QoS? 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:38:59 -0000 #35: PPSP.REQ-8: More support needed for QoS? The current protocol has been designed for short-time-till-playback, unless limited by security considerations (cf. Issue #26 security of handshakes). Otherwise it operates in a best effort mode. But perhaps more is needed, as indicated in the description. Also relevant is issue 12 (=Support for UNHINT), as that helps in making requesting chunks from multiple peers at the same time efficient, as you can cancel the duplicates when you receive an answer. You may need double requests when some peers are slow and strong QoS is needed. -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 20 00:41:30 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 9E10C21F871D for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT) 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 fX7+CaEgia7M for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C089A21F8713 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55140 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFXY-0001xK-Nm; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:41:24 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:41:24 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/36 Message-ID: <052.71c0419cd912eb52b0f89baefc19fdca@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 36 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620074129.C089A21F8713@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #36: PPSP.PP.REQ-6: The peer status report/update SHOULD be advertised among the peers to reflect the status of the peer. 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:41:30 -0000 #36: PPSP.PP.REQ-6: The peer status report/update SHOULD be advertised among the peers to reflect the status of the peer. Peer status information should be advertised among the peers via the peer status report/update message. For example, peer status can be online time, physical link status including DSL/WIFI/etc, battery status, processing capability, and other capabilities of the peer. With this information, a peer can select more appropriate peers for streaming. -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 20 00:43:36 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 BB7B721F8713 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:43:36 -0700 (PDT) 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 8rFzRTBZc7CO for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAA721F86F2 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55167 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFZd-0003h8-Ng; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:43:33 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:43:33 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/37 Message-ID: <052.219ca6f8973523b51d31088e4fe59a1d@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 37 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620074336.0CAA721F86F2@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #37: PPSP.SEC.REQ-1: PPSP MUST support closed swarms, where the peers are authenticated. 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:43:36 -0000 #37: PPSP.SEC.REQ-1: PPSP MUST support closed swarms, where the peers are authenticated. This ensures that only the authenticated users can access the original media in the P2P streaming system. This can be achieved by security mechanisms such as user authentication and/or key management scheme. -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 20 00:45:55 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 68E0C21F8713 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:45:55 -0700 (PDT) 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 bVLdX5jy-+Zk for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F1421F86F2 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55263 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFbr-0000tS-Ub; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:45:51 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:45:51 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/37#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.f3a6ec805ba7e53345d1442040668452@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.219ca6f8973523b51d31088e4fe59a1d@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 37 In-Reply-To: <052.219ca6f8973523b51d31088e4fe59a1d@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620074554.B8F1421F86F2@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:45:54 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] #37: PPSP.SEC.REQ-1: PPSP MUST support closed swarms, where the peers are authenticated. 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:45:55 -0000 #37: PPSP.SEC.REQ-1: PPSP MUST support closed swarms, where the peers are authenticated. Comment (by arno@…): In -02 the Enhanced Closed Swarms (ECS) design was added as one solution. A separate draft on the use of ECS in PPSP will follow. [ENHCLOSED] V. Jovanovikj, D. Gabrijelčič and T. Klobučar. "Access Control in BitTorrent P2P Networks Using the Enhanced Closed Swarms Protocol". In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Emerging Security Information, Systems and Technologies (SECURWARE 2011), pp. 97-102, Nice, France, August 2011. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- 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 trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:46:50 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 C2E4D21F85A4 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:46:50 -0700 (PDT) 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 vWc-gO3sdOVI for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098F021F8597 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55304 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFck-0001sM-9h; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:46:46 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:46:46 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/38 Message-ID: <052.4f8cfe469281287689c54885edcd2c00@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 38 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620074650.098F021F8597@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #38: PPSP.SEC.REQ-2: Confidentiality of the streaming content in PPSP SHOULD be supported 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:46:50 -0000 #38: PPSP.SEC.REQ-2: Confidentiality of the streaming content in PPSP SHOULD be supported -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 20 00:48:02 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 2136121F86DF for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:48:02 -0700 (PDT) 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 Itp+3Lyzby1w for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D2D821F8673 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55368 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFdv-0002xq-80; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:47:59 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:47:59 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/38#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.e0f294dde466dee0caeea103a4b6a391@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.4f8cfe469281287689c54885edcd2c00@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 38 In-Reply-To: <052.4f8cfe469281287689c54885edcd2c00@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620074801.7D2D821F8673@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] #38: PPSP.SEC.REQ-2: Confidentiality of the streaming content in PPSP SHOULD be supported 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:48:02 -0000 #38: PPSP.SEC.REQ-2: Confidentiality of the streaming content in PPSP SHOULD be supported Changes (by arno@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: No extra mechanism is needed in to support confidentiality in PPSPP. A content publisher wishing confidentiality should just distribute content in cyphertext / DRM-ed format. I assume a higher layer handles key management out-of-band. Alternatively, the swarm access control will point-to-point encrypt content. This is now explained in Sec. 13.4 of -02. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:48:50 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 94B3121F86DF for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:48:50 -0700 (PDT) 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 595Xb6pndt4O for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:48:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B36521F8673 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55388 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFea-00046O-3R; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:48:40 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:48:40 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/39 Message-ID: <052.69774559a3bb962d3c1e9341a6a91d3f@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 39 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620074843.2B36521F8673@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #39: PPSP.SEC.REQ-3: PPSP MUST provide an option to encrypt the data exchange among the PPSP entities. 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:48:50 -0000 #39: PPSP.SEC.REQ-3: PPSP MUST provide an option to encrypt the data exchange among the PPSP entities. -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 20 00:50:38 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 5A2D421F8737 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:50:38 -0700 (PDT) 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 MxoP9ZnhTHHn for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F2321F8714 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55471 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFgQ-0000eM-9i; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:50:34 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:50:34 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/39#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.2263f3c610545183a98870ad9153a2f6@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.69774559a3bb962d3c1e9341a6a91d3f@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 39 In-Reply-To: <052.69774559a3bb962d3c1e9341a6a91d3f@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620075037.87F2321F8714@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:50:37 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] #39: PPSP.SEC.REQ-3: PPSP MUST provide an option to encrypt the data exchange among the PPSP entities. 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:50:38 -0000 #39: PPSP.SEC.REQ-3: PPSP MUST provide an option to encrypt the data exchange among the PPSP entities. Changes (by arno@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Added a paragraph to Sec. 13.4. in -02 explaining that the Enhanced Closed Swarms solution, or DTLS or IPsec should be used for point-to-point encryption. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:51:55 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 6342821F85F7 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:51:55 -0700 (PDT) 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 UiBw4maE8tiF for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:51:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD91021F85F2 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55494 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFhZ-0000tD-9S; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:51:45 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:51:45 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/40 Message-ID: <052.e6a0e450fbcf48b7dd9c2ba6f8a928e1@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 40 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620075152.DD91021F85F2@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #40: PPSP.SEC.REQ-4: PPSP MUST have mechanisms to limit potential damage caused by malfunctioning and badly behaving peers in the P2P streaming system. 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:51:55 -0000 #40: PPSP.SEC.REQ-4: PPSP MUST have mechanisms to limit potential damage caused by malfunctioning and badly behaving peers in the P2P streaming system. Such an attack will degrade the quality of the rendered media at the receiver. For example, in a P2P live video streaming system a polluter can introduce corrupted chunks. Each receiver integrates into its playback stream the polluted chunks it receives from its other neighbors. Since the peers forwards chunks to other peers, the polluted content can potentially spread through much of the P2P streaming network. -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 20 00:52:42 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 9293A21F8713 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:52:42 -0700 (PDT) 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 eNRPD9pWH3Jo for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C05321F86BE for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55517 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFiR-0000w6-HC; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:52:39 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:52:39 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/40#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.be3af17786978dbf9d2b096b262d2f64@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.e6a0e450fbcf48b7dd9c2ba6f8a928e1@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 40 In-Reply-To: <052.e6a0e450fbcf48b7dd9c2ba6f8a928e1@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620075242.0C05321F86BE@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:52:42 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] #40: PPSP.SEC.REQ-4: PPSP MUST have mechanisms to limit potential damage caused by malfunctioning and badly behaving peers in the P2P streaming system. 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:52:42 -0000 #40: PPSP.SEC.REQ-4: PPSP MUST have mechanisms to limit potential damage caused by malfunctioning and badly behaving peers in the P2P streaming system. Changes (by arno@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: A per-message analysis of vulnerabilities was added to -02 as Section 13.5. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:53:29 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 3C70A21F86BE for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:53:29 -0700 (PDT) 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 qx0FMTtNhULK for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D4F021F85F7 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55537 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFjC-0000yO-DN; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:53:26 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:53:26 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/41 Message-ID: <052.19dc3dccf561f0c328eecf4a477e6b4c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 41 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620075328.8D4F021F85F7@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #41: PPSP.SEC.REQ-5: PPSP SHOULD support identifying badly behaving peers and exclude or reject them from the P2P streaming system. 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:53:29 -0000 #41: PPSP.SEC.REQ-5: PPSP SHOULD support identifying badly behaving peers and exclude or reject them from the P2P streaming system. -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 20 00:54:52 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 EC67321F871A for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:54:52 -0700 (PDT) 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 YOPvrbIreesW for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA4F21F8717 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55561 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFkX-00019S-Pn; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:54:49 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:54:49 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/41#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.332fd5e3f044136b7710622a2d2a25a8@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.19dc3dccf561f0c328eecf4a477e6b4c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 41 In-Reply-To: <052.19dc3dccf561f0c328eecf4a477e6b4c@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620075452.4EA4F21F8717@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] #41: PPSP.SEC.REQ-5: PPSP SHOULD support identifying badly behaving peers and exclude or reject them from the P2P streaming system. 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:54:53 -0000 #41: PPSP.SEC.REQ-5: PPSP SHOULD support identifying badly behaving peers and exclude or reject them from the P2P streaming system. Changes (by arno@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: A Section 13.6 was added to -02 on how peers can excluded faulty peers from future interactions and possibilities for global exclusion. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:55:34 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 2357621F871A for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:55:34 -0700 (PDT) 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 mLoOnisweR3B for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:55:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FEAE21F8717 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:55:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55614 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFlD-0001iN-9A; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:55:31 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:55:31 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/42 Message-ID: <052.cb6db90c353cd59ac63bc8e1d94c2a2d@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 42 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620075533.6FEAE21F8717@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:55:33 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #42: PPSP.SEC.REQ-6: PPSP MUST prevent peers from DoS attacks which will exhaust the P2P streaming system's available resource. 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:55:34 -0000 #42: PPSP.SEC.REQ-6: PPSP MUST prevent peers from DoS attacks which will exhaust the P2P streaming system's available resource. -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 20 00:56:27 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 A37B921F8737 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:56:27 -0700 (PDT) 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 G76rXK3lgDiX for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A45CC21F8713 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55639 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFlu-0001wg-7j; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:56:14 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:56:14 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/42#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.38c0a38b74df14b49cfb7527f3ff1d0d@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.cb6db90c353cd59ac63bc8e1d94c2a2d@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 42 In-Reply-To: <052.cb6db90c353cd59ac63bc8e1d94c2a2d@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620075626.A45CC21F8713@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:11 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] #42: PPSP.SEC.REQ-6: PPSP MUST prevent peers from DoS attacks which will exhaust the P2P streaming system's available resource. 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:56:27 -0000 #42: PPSP.SEC.REQ-6: PPSP MUST prevent peers from DoS attacks which will exhaust the P2P streaming system's available resource. Changes (by arno@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: How to prevent DoS attacks is also described in the per-message security analysis in Sec. 13.5 of -02. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From a.bakker@vu.nl Wed Jun 20 01:12:34 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 97B5121F8713 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:12:34 -0700 (PDT) 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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, 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 wPR57+F-r6I7 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65FD21F8712 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:12:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from PEXHB012B.vu.local (130.37.236.67) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:12:32 +0200 Received: from [130.161.211.249] (130.37.238.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.4; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:12:31 +0200 Message-ID: <4FE185F0.2010900@cs.vu.nl> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:12:32 +0200 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0 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] Request For Comments ;o) 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, 20 Jun 2012 08:12:35 -0000 Hi folks we uploaded a new draft and updated the issue tracker (apologies for the many mails). It incorporates the discussion of the last 5 months. It addresses almost all security issues. For closed swarms support we are working with the author of the Enhanced Closed Swarms design on a separate draft, as it is a substantial piece of work. We especially sollicit comments on Section 13, the security considerations. Thanks for your input, Arno and Riccardo From trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:58:42 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 7A47421F874A for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:42 -0700 (PDT) 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 PLR4FXXGbkw5 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DA921F8742 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55680 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFoF-00023R-1j; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:58:39 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:58:39 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/20#comment:2 Message-ID: <067.84341118d82afa54ac0d2b650121a980@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.d1b7ddd8ab71770c15651edc6fbff2b8@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 20 In-Reply-To: <052.d1b7ddd8ab71770c15651edc6fbff2b8@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620075841.C1DA921F8742@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:19:58 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [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, 20 Jun 2012 07:58:42 -0000 #20: Evaluate security implications of PEX. Comment (by arno@…): This ticket is related to PPSP.SEC.REQ-7: "PPSP SHOULD be robust, i.e., when centralized tracker fails the P2P streaming system SHOULD still work by supporting distributed trackers." PEX is one mechanism for distributed tracking, once secured. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- 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 trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org Wed Jun 20 00:59:42 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 4EE1E21F8723 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:59:42 -0700 (PDT) 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 cl-gVNu1ZzwK for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C8821F8711 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55689 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFpD-00025T-IC; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:59:39 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:59:39 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/43 Message-ID: <052.17210f2fd0973b3b645aa40bc710b599@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 43 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620075941.B1C8821F8711@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:59:41 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:19:58 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: [ppsp] #43: Add reference to content integrity protection for live streaming to draft. 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, 20 Jun 2012 07:59:42 -0000 #43: Add reference to content integrity protection for live streaming to draft. -- ---------------------------+--------------------------------------------- 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 Jun 20 01:01:12 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 F3C0221F8737 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:01:11 -0700 (PDT) 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 DMjwYQKyulOF for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [77.72.230.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B6FB21F8723 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55771 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1ShFqe-0002XL-60; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:01:08 +0200 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, 20 Jun 2012 08:01:08 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/ppsp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ppsp/trac/ticket/43#comment:1 Message-ID: <067.fcb8877ec2699ca707c40d6e3c5d679c@trac.tools.ietf.org> References: <052.17210f2fd0973b3b645aa40bc710b599@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 43 In-Reply-To: <052.17210f2fd0973b3b645aa40bc710b599@trac.tools.ietf.org> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 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 grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Resent-To: Resent-Message-Id: <20120620080111.3B6FB21F8723@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: trac+ppsp@trac.tools.ietf.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:19:58 -0700 Cc: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ppsp] #43: Add reference to content integrity protection for live streaming to draft. 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, 20 Jun 2012 08:01:12 -0000 #43: Add reference to content integrity protection for live streaming to draft. Changes (by arno@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => fixed Comment: Updated Live Streaming section of -02 to include "Sign All" content authentication, and reference to [SIGMCAST] following discussion with Fabio Picconi. [SIGMCAST] Chung Kei Wong and Simon S. Lam. "Digital Signatures for Flows and Multicasts". IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp. 502-513, Aug 1999. -- ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Reporter: arno@… | Owner: draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol@… Type: enhancement | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: peer-protocol | Version: Severity: - | Resolution: fixed Keywords: | ---------------------------+---------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: ppsp From peer2peer@gmail.com Wed Jun 27 08:52:14 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 E2CE021F8733 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:52:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9yo8Zfk+vWNm for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75BE421F86C9 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by werb13 with SMTP id b13so957873wer.31 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:52:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1Kwd60pG0/9eHzVb4NarJshyfHP6QY1ubCPtM8BOm0Y=; b=bQ6md8UX5iu0kOzPyJFTP5BlzP1rM4423Omv6hsrHzE49VvYpwGmM87ZLa/OmBCyXT mulUkz1IMK0MD4Eoam0IljjSzKK0j8+KPGsOM1TJVx2iXXsnm3JVpflYSWi7xcmktIPu Ojt8ssZ7oU25KJWzySnk2Srd5HJlHmqav0EUKNRvf1hlPWr40JVXSy0/MK+x8Q5C/BqX FaiGvRbkP4rPr5tNNhpSlcI+M4GSmTHTp0kapsMUqV9qetzA0VQCM8YPKqL224IUV9BQ mbhAe5549fEnAZFq7wtwHLNZ7vd2XGcbDYM/czUPL3kCzjyN+gvnfoAsfEzN5E/M4J1L 8QQA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.98.69 with SMTP id eg5mr5839690wib.3.1340812329449; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.81.166 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:52:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:52:09 +0200 Message-ID: From: Johan Pouwelse To: Rui Cruz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041828209b782204c376322d Cc: ppsp Subject: [ppsp] Progress on core tracker protocol? 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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:52:14 -0000 --f46d041828209b782204c376322d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 There was agreement for the need to create a core tracker protocol. Any progress to report, since last month? What do you think of my proposal below for the focus of this really-limited-to-the-core protocol? This document specifies the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol--Core Tracker Protocol (PPSP-CTP), an application-layer control protocol for facilitating Peer-2-Peer streaming. This core protocol is limited to a peer discovery request message and reply message. The PPSP-CTP protocol is limited to the GET-PEERS message and subsequent reply with a peer list. This core protocol is the only requirement for a simple streaming service, along with the PPSP peer protocol. We refer to an upcoming Extended Tracker Protocol for more sophisticated features. For instance, the exchange of meta information, content information, statistics reporting, etc. -johan. On Tuesday, June 5, 2012, Rui Cruz wrote: > Hi, > > The Tracker Protocol is being split to a base specification draft and to > extensions. > We hope to have the base specification submitted in a couple of weeks. > > > Regards, > > Rui Cruz > rui.cruz@ieee.org > > IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal > __________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp > > On 04/06/2012, at 10:39, stefano previdi wrote: > > All, > > here are some notes i preparation of the next PPSP meeting we're > going to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html) > > 1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism > We currently have two proposals that I'd try to name as: > . Bin Notation > . Ranges > Both proposals have been discussed in the mailing list and it > looks to me we're NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any of > them also due to lack of participation of the WG into the > discussion (other than the authors of each proposal). > > Therefore, as of today, we can reasonably explore the > following options: > Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer protocol > specification and we define them both MANDATORY so > to cope with interoperability issues. > Option-2: we select one option through a WG vote (this is my > least preferred option). > > Since I'd really prefer to avoid Option-2, I can only consider > the "dual" specification. WG opinion on this is requested. > > Again, it would be very beneficial to the WG if current > implementors of streaming protocols would/could speak-up and > give their opinion (see point 4 below). > > 2. Peer Protocol - Security Section > The IESG will not accept any protocol specification without a > consistent security section (IOW: way more than what we > currently have) although there are some arguments on whether > we need the security mechanisms in the base spec. > > Arno and Zong Ning proposed some text and we need to agree/amend > it asap so to update the draft. I'd like to close this one and > have a new version of the draft for next meeting. > > 3. Tracker Protocol > After IETF83 we agreed to split into two distinct drafts: base > specification and optional extensions. > > Authors, it would be good to have a first submission before next > meeting. > > 4. Survey draft. > We need to refresh/re-submit and the chairs proposed the > authors/editors to include a section on deployment experiences > and more precisely on chunk addressing and security mechanisms. > Hopefully this will also feed ongoing discussions. > > 5. Meeting during IETF84. > We have requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone > interested, please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or > myself. > > Let us know if anything is missing. > > Thanks. > > Stefano & Yunfei > _______________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp > > > --f46d041828209b782204c376322d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There was agreement for the need to create a core tracker protocol. An= y progress to report, since last month?
What do you think of my p= roposal below for the focus of this really-limited-to-the-core protocol?


This document specifies the Peer-to-Peer= Streaming Protocol--Core Tracker=A0Protocol (PPSP-CTP), an application-lay= er control protocol for facilitating Peer-2-Peer streaming. This core proto= col is limited to a peer discovery request message and reply message.
The PPSP-CTP protocol is limited to the GET-PEERS message and subseque= nt reply with a peer list. This core protocol is the only requirement for a= simple streaming service, along with the PPSP peer protocol. We refer to a= n upcoming Extended Tracker Protocol for more sophisticated features. For i= nstance, =A0the exchange of meta information,=A0content information, statis= tics reporting, etc.


=A0-johan.
On Tuesday, June 5= , 2012, Rui Cruz wrote:
Hi,

The Tracker Protocol is =A0being split to a base spe= cification draft and to extensions.
We hope to have the base spec= ification submitted in a couple of weeks.=A0


Regards,

Rui Cruz
= rui.cruz@ieee.org

= IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal
__________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
<= div>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

On 04/06/2012, at 10:39, stefano previdi wrote:

All,

here are some notes i preparation of= the next PPSP meeting we're
going to have in Vancouver (http://www.ie= tf.org/meeting/84/index.html)

1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism
=A0=A0We currently ha= ve two proposals that I'd try to name as:
. Bin Notation
. Ranges=
=A0=A0Both proposals have been discussed in the mailing list and it =A0=A0looks to me we're NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any of =
=A0=A0them also due to lack of participation of the WG into the
=A0= =A0discussion (other than the authors of each proposal).

=A0=A0Ther= efore, as of today, we can reasonably explore the
=A0=A0following opti= ons:
=A0=A0Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer protocol =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0specification and we define them both = MANDATORY so
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0to cope with interope= rability issues.
=A0=A0Option-2: we select one option through a WG vote= (this is my
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0least preferred optio= n).

=A0=A0Since I'd really prefer to avoid Option-2, I can only consid= er
=A0=A0the "dual" specification. WG opinion on this is req= uested.

=A0=A0Again, it would be very beneficial to the WG if curre= nt
=A0=A0implementors of streaming protocols would/could speak-up and =
=A0=A0give their opinion (see point 4 below).

2. Peer Protocol - Se= curity Section
=A0=A0The IESG will not accept any protocol specificatio= n without a
=A0=A0consistent security section (IOW: way more than what= we
=A0=A0currently have) although there are some arguments on whether
= =A0=A0we need the security mechanisms in the base spec.

=A0=A0Arno = and Zong Ning proposed some text and we need to agree/amend
=A0=A0it a= sap so to update the draft. I'd like to close this one and
=A0=A0have a new version of the draft for next meeting.

3. Tracker = Protocol
=A0=A0After IETF83 we agreed to split into two distinct drafts= : base
=A0=A0specification and optional extensions.

=A0=A0Auth= ors, it would be good to have a first submission before next
=A0=A0meeting.

4. Survey draft.
=A0=A0We need to refresh/re-sub= mit and the chairs proposed the
=A0=A0authors/editors to include a sec= tion on deployment experiences
=A0=A0and more precisely on chunk addre= ssing and security mechanisms.
=A0=A0Hopefully this will also feed ongoing discussions.

5. Meeting= during IETF84.
=A0=A0We have requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. A= nyone
=A0=A0interested, please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei o= r
=A0=A0myself.

Let us know if anything is missing.

Thanks.

Stefano &= Yunfei
_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing = list
ppsp@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
--f46d041828209b782204c376322d-- From rui.cruz@ieee-pt.org Wed Jun 27 09:40:27 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 BD07221F87A0 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:40:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 BfmM1kT7J9PU for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8502521F8739 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so852048wgb.13 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:40:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:message-id :content-transfer-encoding:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to :x-gm-message-state; bh=HnHqXFFvIdSkuSGm6wJ7Q43ZPTbwj3RA66vfl9zxXks=; b=eq6kPDtnLDL1X+q31ISmOjY1PASqJMa3d6lbCvN5ZxjswCs8nEZtzhDlgdXKB8cI2i fBsbxMHO9Kp5gMtBoLfTljRZCIVJbdet2ODrutg7hjYrkFICg5aQT4enKJnIOkOY2tRV yVNfqpSPRh1nOZxptnruhX5k62KdUxjE4BcUZvNwm0kF1g0bsYfaQ2TDfO2qJBoWGkkZ BczDcQx/Jx1Vt2uQoGvHp10osWwejLeJRQ/bKhVqjJO3hGAPTxSzeHbme+vOMDCLFATZ ccmLB5fuD62glHa2lTTSvbSVs8yGmCJs4/Z80ENU8eac3Ze0NEyhWdMEAvOzWukn7xB8 5fJw== Received: by 10.216.150.213 with SMTP id z63mr11361834wej.102.1340815225364; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.215] (89-180-107-197.net.novis.pt. [89.180.107.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dg2sm20801006wib.4.2012.06.27.09.40.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:40:23 -0700 (PDT) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-FC19556F-860A-4CDB-A163-BE143C4287CC Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: Rui Cruz Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:41:19 +0100 To: Johan Pouwelse X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmCENLS+JBkn50h8xIjxbzJAMGrztSv6AfDp5Tacghgcj3mr887DgX7R/ZTc5CwfnLHR6wB Cc: Rui Cruz , ppsp Subject: Re: [ppsp] Progress on core tracker protocol? 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: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:40:27 -0000 --Apple-Mail-FC19556F-860A-4CDB-A163-BE143C4287CC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The PPSP-TP base Tracker Protocol draft will be published before the end of J= une. It does essentially what we had discussed during IETF 83. The PPSP-TP Extended Tracker Protocol will bring all those more sophisticate= d features, and will be published afterwards (during July) Cumprimentos/Regards, Rui Cruz Sent from my iPad2 On 27/06/2012, at 16:52, Johan Pouwelse wrote: > There was agreement for the need to create a core tracker protocol. Any pr= ogress to report, since last month? > What do you think of my proposal below for the focus of this really-limite= d-to-the-core protocol? >=20 >=20 > This document specifies the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol--Core Tracker P= rotocol (PPSP-CTP), an application-layer control protocol for facilitating P= eer-2-Peer streaming. This core protocol is limited to a peer discovery requ= est message and reply message. > The PPSP-CTP protocol is limited to the GET-PEERS message and subsequent r= eply with a peer list. This core protocol is the only requirement for a simp= le streaming service, along with the PPSP peer protocol. We refer to an upco= ming Extended Tracker Protocol for more sophisticated features. For instance= , the exchange of meta information, content information, statistics reporti= ng, etc. >=20 >=20 > -johan. > On Tuesday, June 5, 2012, Rui Cruz wrote: > Hi, >=20 > The Tracker Protocol is being split to a base specification draft and to e= xtensions. > We hope to have the base specification submitted in a couple of weeks.=20 >=20 >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Rui Cruz > rui.cruz@ieee.org >=20 > IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal > __________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp >=20 > On 04/06/2012, at 10:39, stefano previdi wrote: >=20 >> All, >>=20 >> here are some notes i preparation of the next PPSP meeting we're=20 >> going to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html) >>=20 >> 1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism >> We currently have two proposals that I'd try to name as: >> . Bin Notation >> . Ranges >> Both proposals have been discussed in the mailing list and it=20 >> looks to me we're NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any of=20 >> them also due to lack of participation of the WG into the=20 >> discussion (other than the authors of each proposal). >>=20 >> Therefore, as of today, we can reasonably explore the=20 >> following options: >> Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer protocol=20 >> specification and we define them both MANDATORY so=20 >> to cope with interoperability issues. >> Option-2: we select one option through a WG vote (this is my=20 >> least preferred option). >>=20 >> Since I'd really prefer to avoid Option-2, I can only consider=20 >> the "dual" specification. WG opinion on this is requested. >>=20 >> Again, it would be very beneficial to the WG if current=20 >> implementors of streaming protocols would/could speak-up and=20 >> give their opinion (see point 4 below). >>=20 >> 2. Peer Protocol - Security Section >> The IESG will not accept any protocol specification without a=20 >> consistent security section (IOW: way more than what we=20 >> currently have) although there are some arguments on whether=20 >> we need the security mechanisms in the base spec. >>=20 >> Arno and Zong Ning proposed some text and we need to agree/amend=20 >> it asap so to update the draft. I'd like to close this one and=20 >> have a new version of the draft for next meeting. >>=20 >> 3. Tracker Protocol >> After IETF83 we agreed to split into two distinct drafts: base=20 >> specification and optional extensions. >>=20 >> Authors, it would be good to have a first submission before next=20 >> meeting. >>=20 >> 4. Survey draft. >> We need to refresh/re-submit and the chairs proposed the=20 >> authors/editors to include a section on deployment experiences=20 >> and more precisely on chunk addressing and security mechanisms.=20 >> Hopefully this will also feed ongoing discussions. >>=20 >> 5. Meeting during IETF84. >> We have requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone=20 >> interested, please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or=20 >> myself. >>=20 >> Let us know if anything is missing. >>=20 >> Thanks. >>=20 >> Stefano & Yunfei >> _______________________________________________ >> ppsp mailing list >> ppsp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp --Apple-Mail-FC19556F-860A-4CDB-A163-BE143C4287CC Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
The PPSP-TP base Tracker Protocol draft will be published before the end of June.
It does essentially what we had discussed during IETF 83.
The PPSP-TP Extended Tracker Protocol will bring all those more sophisticated features, and will be published afterwards (during July)

Cumprimentos/Regards,
Rui Cruz

Sent from my iPad2

On 27/06/2012, at 16:52, Johan Pouwelse <peer2peer@gmail.com> wrote:

There was agreement for the need to create a core tracker protocol. Any progress to report, since last month?
What do you think of my proposal below for the focus of this really-limited-to-the-core protocol?


This document specifies the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol--Core Tracker Protocol (PPSP-CTP), an application-layer control protocol for facilitating Peer-2-Peer streaming. This core protocol is limited to a peer discovery request message and reply message.
The PPSP-CTP protocol is limited to the GET-PEERS message and subsequent reply with a peer list. This core protocol is the only requirement for a simple streaming service, along with the PPSP peer protocol. We refer to an upcoming Extended Tracker Protocol for more sophisticated features. For instance,  the exchange of meta information, content information, statistics reporting, etc.


 -johan.
On Tuesday, June 5, 2012, Rui Cruz wrote:
Hi,

The Tracker Protocol is  being split to a base specification draft and to extensions.
We hope to have the base specification submitted in a couple of weeks. 


Regards,

Rui Cruz

IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal
__________________________________________
ppsp mailing list

On 04/06/2012, at 10:39, stefano previdi wrote:

All,

here are some notes i preparation of the next PPSP meeting we're
going to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html)

1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism
  We currently have two proposals that I'd try to name as:
. Bin Notation
. Ranges
  Both proposals have been discussed in the mailing list and it
  looks to me we're NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any of
  them also due to lack of participation of the WG into the
  discussion (other than the authors of each proposal).

  Therefore, as of today, we can reasonably explore the
  following options:
  Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer protocol
            specification and we define them both MANDATORY so
            to cope with interoperability issues.
  Option-2: we select one option through a WG vote (this is my
            least preferred option).

  Since I'd really prefer to avoid Option-2, I can only consider
  the "dual" specification. WG opinion on this is requested.

  Again, it would be very beneficial to the WG if current
  implementors of streaming protocols would/could speak-up and
  give their opinion (see point 4 below).

2. Peer Protocol - Security Section
  The IESG will not accept any protocol specification without a
  consistent security section (IOW: way more than what we
  currently have) although there are some arguments on whether
  we need the security mechanisms in the base spec.

  Arno and Zong Ning proposed some text and we need to agree/amend
  it asap so to update the draft. I'd like to close this one and
  have a new version of the draft for next meeting.

3. Tracker Protocol
  After IETF83 we agreed to split into two distinct drafts: base
  specification and optional extensions.

  Authors, it would be good to have a first submission before next
  meeting.

4. Survey draft.
  We need to refresh/re-submit and the chairs proposed the
  authors/editors to include a section on deployment experiences
  and more precisely on chunk addressing and security mechanisms.
  Hopefully this will also feed ongoing discussions.

5. Meeting during IETF84.
  We have requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone
  interested, please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or
  myself.

Let us know if anything is missing.

Thanks.

Stefano & Yunfei
_______________________________________________
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
--Apple-Mail-FC19556F-860A-4CDB-A163-BE143C4287CC-- From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Wed Jun 27 18:45:25 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 7E0D911E8171 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:45:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.042 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.581, 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 w0g6VkpQduOJ for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D67711E810A for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE5FE6C6; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:45:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DF30E6B6; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:45:22 +0800 (CST) Received: from zyf-PC ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012062809452094-2674 ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:45:20 +0800 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:45:10 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: "Johan Pouwelse" , "'Rui Cruz'" References: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2012062809451042580922@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-28 09:45:20, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-28 09:45:21, Serialize complete at 2012-06-28 09:45:21 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart311738646867_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-19002.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--39.405-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--39.405-7.0-31-10;No--39.405-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Cc: ppsp Subject: Re: [ppsp] Progress on core tracker protocol? 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, 28 Jun 2012 01:45:25 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart311738646867_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" SXQgc2VlbXMgcmVhc29uYWJsZS4NCg0KWXVuZmVpDQoNCg0KDQoNCnpoYW5neXVuZmVpDQoNCkZy b206IEpvaGFuIFBvdXdlbHNlDQpEYXRlOiAyMDEyLTA2LTI3IDIzOjUyDQpUbzogUnVpIENydXoN CkNDOiBwcHNwDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbcHBzcF0gUHJvZ3Jlc3Mgb24gY29yZSB0cmFja2VyIHByb3Rv Y29sPw0KVGhlcmUgd2FzIGFncmVlbWVudCBmb3IgdGhlIG5lZWQgdG8gY3JlYXRlIGEgY29yZSB0 cmFja2VyIHByb3RvY29sLiBBbnkgcHJvZ3Jlc3MgdG8gcmVwb3J0LCBzaW5jZSBsYXN0IG1vbnRo Pw0KV2hhdCBkbyB5b3UgdGhpbmsgb2YgbXkgcHJvcG9zYWwgYmVsb3cgZm9yIHRoZSBmb2N1cyBv ZiB0aGlzIHJlYWxseS1saW1pdGVkLXRvLXRoZS1jb3JlIHByb3RvY29sPw0KDQoNCg0KDQpUaGlz IGRvY3VtZW50IHNwZWNpZmllcyB0aGUgUGVlci10by1QZWVyIFN0cmVhbWluZyBQcm90b2NvbC0t Q29yZSBUcmFja2VyIFByb3RvY29sIChQUFNQLUNUUCksIGFuIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9uLWxheWVyIGNv bnRyb2wgcHJvdG9jb2wgZm9yIGZhY2lsaXRhdGluZyBQZWVyLTItUGVlciBzdHJlYW1pbmcuIFRo aXMgY29yZSBwcm90b2NvbCBpcyBsaW1pdGVkIHRvIGEgcGVlciBkaXNjb3ZlcnkgcmVxdWVzdCBt ZXNzYWdlIGFuZCByZXBseSBtZXNzYWdlLg0KVGhlIFBQU1AtQ1RQIHByb3RvY29sIGlzIGxpbWl0 ZWQgdG8gdGhlIEdFVC1QRUVSUyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBzdWJzZXF1ZW50IHJlcGx5IHdpdGggYSBw ZWVyIGxpc3QuIFRoaXMgY29yZSBwcm90b2NvbCBpcyB0aGUgb25seSByZXF1aXJlbWVudCBmb3Ig YSBzaW1wbGUgc3RyZWFtaW5nIHNlcnZpY2UsIGFsb25nIHdpdGggdGhlIFBQU1AgcGVlciBwcm90 b2NvbC4gV2UgcmVmZXIgdG8gYW4gdXBjb21pbmcgRXh0ZW5kZWQgVHJhY2tlciBQcm90b2NvbCBm b3IgbW9yZSBzb3BoaXN0aWNhdGVkIGZlYXR1cmVzLiBGb3IgaW5zdGFuY2UsICB0aGUgZXhjaGFu Z2Ugb2YgbWV0YSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiwgY29udGVudCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiwgc3RhdGlzdGljcyBy ZXBvcnRpbmcsIGV0Yy4NCg0KDQoNCg0KIC1qb2hhbi4NCk9uIFR1ZXNkYXksIEp1bmUgNSwgMjAx MiwgUnVpIENydXogd3JvdGU6DQoNCkhpLA0KDQoNClRoZSBUcmFja2VyIFByb3RvY29sIGlzICBi ZWluZyBzcGxpdCB0byBhIGJhc2Ugc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBkcmFmdCBhbmQgdG8gZXh0ZW5zaW9u cy4NCldlIGhvcGUgdG8gaGF2ZSB0aGUgYmFzZSBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBpbiBh IGNvdXBsZSBvZiB3ZWVrcy4gDQoNCg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KDQoNClJ1aSBDcnV6DQpydWkuY3J1 ekBpZWVlLm9yZw0KDQoNCklTVC9JTkVTQy1JRC9JTk9WIC0gTGlzYm9uLCBQb3J0dWdhbA0KX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpwcHNwIG1haWxpbmcgbGlz dA0KcHBzcEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9w cHNwDQoNCg0KT24gMDQvMDYvMjAxMiwgYXQgMTA6MzksIHN0ZWZhbm8gcHJldmlkaSB3cm90ZToN Cg0KDQpBbGwsDQoNCmhlcmUgYXJlIHNvbWUgbm90ZXMgaSBwcmVwYXJhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgbmV4 dCBQUFNQIG1lZXRpbmcgd2UncmUgDQpnb2luZyB0byBoYXZlIGluIFZhbmNvdXZlciAoaHR0cDov L3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tZWV0aW5nLzg0L2luZGV4Lmh0bWwpDQoNCjEuIFBlZXIgUHJvdG9jb2wg LSBjaHVuayBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIG1lY2hhbmlzbQ0KICBXZSBjdXJyZW50bHkgaGF2ZSB0d28gcHJv cG9zYWxzIHRoYXQgSSdkIHRyeSB0byBuYW1lIGFzOg0KLiBCaW4gTm90YXRpb24NCi4gUmFuZ2Vz DQogIEJvdGggcHJvcG9zYWxzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBkaXNjdXNzZWQgaW4gdGhlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlz dCBhbmQgaXQgDQogIGxvb2tzIHRvIG1lIHdlJ3JlIE5PVCBhY2hpZXZpbmcgYWdyZWVtZW50L2Nv bnNlbnN1cyBvbiBhbnkgb2YgDQogIHRoZW0gYWxzbyBkdWUgdG8gbGFjayBvZiBwYXJ0aWNpcGF0 aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBXRyBpbnRvIHRoZSANCiAgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiAob3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgYXV0 aG9ycyBvZiBlYWNoIHByb3Bvc2FsKS4NCg0KICBUaGVyZWZvcmUsIGFzIG9mIHRvZGF5LCB3ZSBj YW4gcmVhc29uYWJseSBleHBsb3JlIHRoZSANCiAgZm9sbG93aW5nIG9wdGlvbnM6DQogIE9wdGlv bi0xOiBXZSBwcm9wb3NlIGJvdGggc29sdXRpb25zIGluIHRoZSBwZWVyIHByb3RvY29sIA0KICAg ICAgICAgICAgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgd2UgZGVmaW5lIHRoZW0gYm90aCBNQU5EQVRPUlkg c28gDQogICAgICAgICAgICB0byBjb3BlIHdpdGggaW50ZXJvcGVyYWJpbGl0eSBpc3N1ZXMuDQog IE9wdGlvbi0yOiB3ZSBzZWxlY3Qgb25lIG9wdGlvbiB0aHJvdWdoIGEgV0cgdm90ZSAodGhpcyBp cyBteSANCiAgICAgICAgICAgIGxlYXN0IHByZWZlcnJlZCBvcHRpb24pLg0KDQogIFNpbmNlIEkn ZCByZWFsbHkgcHJlZmVyIHRvIGF2b2lkIE9wdGlvbi0yLCBJIGNhbiBvbmx5IGNvbnNpZGVyIA0K ICB0aGUgImR1YWwiIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24uIFdHIG9waW5pb24gb24gdGhpcyBpcyByZXF1ZXN0 ZWQuDQoNCiAgQWdhaW4sIGl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIHZlcnkgYmVuZWZpY2lhbCB0byB0aGUgV0cgaWYg Y3VycmVudCANCiAgaW1wbGVtZW50b3JzIG9mIHN0cmVhbWluZyBwcm90b2NvbHMgd291bGQvY291 bGQgc3BlYWstdXAgYW5kIA0KICBnaXZlIHRoZWlyIG9waW5pb24gKHNlZSBwb2ludCA0IGJlbG93 KS4NCg0KMi4gUGVlciBQcm90b2NvbCAtIFNlY3VyaXR5IFNlY3Rpb24NCiAgVGhlIElFU0cgd2ls bCBub3QgYWNjZXB0IGFueSBwcm90b2NvbCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHdpdGhvdXQgYSANCiAgY29u c2lzdGVudCBzZWN1cml0eSBzZWN0aW9uIChJT1c6IHdheSBtb3JlIHRoYW4gd2hhdCB3ZSANCiAg Y3VycmVudGx5IGhhdmUpIGFsdGhvdWdoIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBzb21lIGFyZ3VtZW50cyBvbiB3aGV0 aGVyIA0KICB3ZSBuZWVkIHRoZSBzZWN1cml0eSBtZWNoYW5pc21zIGluIHRoZSBiYXNlIHNwZWMu DQoNCiAgQXJubyBhbmQgWm9uZyBOaW5nIHByb3Bvc2VkIHNvbWUgdGV4dCBhbmQgd2UgbmVlZCB0 byBhZ3JlZS9hbWVuZCANCiAgaXQgYXNhcCBzbyB0byB1cGRhdGUgdGhlIGRyYWZ0LiBJJ2QgbGlr ZSB0byBjbG9zZSB0aGlzIG9uZSBhbmQgDQogIGhhdmUgYSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgZHJh ZnQgZm9yIG5leHQgbWVldGluZy4NCg0KMy4gVHJhY2tlciBQcm90b2NvbA0KICBBZnRlciBJRVRG ODMgd2UgYWdyZWVkIHRvIHNwbGl0IGludG8gdHdvIGRpc3RpbmN0IGRyYWZ0czogYmFzZSANCiAg c3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgb3B0aW9uYWwgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucy4NCg0KICBBdXRob3JzLCBpdCB3 b3VsZCBiZSBnb29kIHRvIGhhdmUgYSBmaXJzdCBzdWJtaXNzaW9uIGJlZm9yZSBuZXh0IA0KICBt ZWV0aW5nLg0KDQo0LiBTdXJ2ZXkgZHJhZnQuDQogIFdlIG5lZWQgdG8gcmVmcmVzaC9yZS1zdWJt aXQgYW5kIHRoZSBjaGFpcnMgcHJvcG9zZWQgdGhlIA0KICBhdXRob3JzL2VkaXRvcnMgdG8gaW5j bHVkZSBhIHNlY3Rpb24gb24gZGVwbG95bWVudCBleHBlcmllbmNlcyANCiAgYW5kIG1vcmUgcHJl Y2lzZWx5IG9uIGNodW5rIGFkZHJlc3NpbmcgYW5kIHNlY3VyaXR5IG1lY2hhbmlzbXMuIA0KICBI b3BlZnVsbHkgdGhpcyB3aWxsIGFsc28gZmVlZCBvbmdvaW5nIGRpc2N1c3Npb25zLg0KDQo1LiBN ZWV0aW5nIGR1cmluZyBJRVRGODQuDQogIFdlIGhhdmUgcmVxdWVzdGVkIGEgc2xvdCBmb3IgVmFu Y291dmVyIG1lZXRpbmcuIEFueW9uZSANCiAgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCwgcGxlYXNlIHJlcXVlc3QgYW4g YWdlbmRhIHNsb3QgYXNhcCB0byBZdW5mZWkgb3IgDQogIG15c2VsZi4NCg0KTGV0IHVzIGtub3cg aWYgYW55dGhpbmcgaXMgbWlzc2luZy4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLg0KDQpTdGVmYW5vICYgWXVuZmVpDQpf X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KcHBzcCBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QNCnBwc3BAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlz dGluZm8vcHBzcA== ------=_001_NextPart311738646867_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
It seems reasonable.
 
Yunfei
 
zhangyunfei
 
Date: 2012-06-27 23:52
To: Rui Cruz
CC: ppsp
Subject: [ppsp] Progress on core tracker=20 protocol?
There was agreement for the need to create a core tracker protocol. A= ny=20 progress to report, since last month?
What do you think of my proposal below for the focus of this=20 really-limited-to-the-core protocol?


This document specifies the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol--Core=20 Tracker Protocol (PPSP-CTP), an application-layer control protocol fo= r=20 facilitating Peer-2-Peer streaming. This core protocol is limited to a pee= r=20 discovery request message and reply message.
The PPSP-CTP protocol is limited to the GET-PEERS message and subsequ= ent=20 reply with a peer list. This core protocol is the only requirement for a s= imple=20 streaming service, along with the PPSP peer protocol. We refer to an upcom= ing=20 Extended Tracker Protocol for more sophisticated features. For instance,=20  the exchange of meta information, content information, statisti= cs=20 reporting, etc.


 -johan.
On Tuesday, June 5, 2012, Rui= Cruz=20 wrote:
Hi,

The Tracker Protocol is  being split to a base specification d= raft=20 and to extensions.
We hope to have the base specification submitted in a couple of=20 weeks. 


Regards,

Rui Cruz
rui.cruz@ieee.org

IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal
__________________________________________
ppsp mailing list

On 04/06/2012, at 10:39, stefano previdi wrote:

All,

here are some notes i preparation of the next PPSP me= eting=20 we're
going to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html)

= 1. Peer=20 Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism
  We currently have= two=20 proposals that I'd try to name as:
. Bin Notation
.=20 Ranges
  Both proposals have been discussed in the mailin= g list=20 and it
  looks to me we're NOT achieving agreement/conse= nsus=20 on any of
  them also due to lack of participation of th= e WG=20 into the
  discussion (other than the authors of each=20 proposal).

  Therefore, as of today, we can reasonabl= y=20 explore the
  following options:
  Option-1= : We=20 propose both solutions in the peer protocol=20
           =  specification=20 and we define them both MANDATORY so=20
           =  to=20 cope with interoperability issues.
  Option-2: we select = one=20 option through a WG vote (this is my=20
           =  least=20 preferred option).

  Since I'd really prefer to avoid= =20 Option-2, I can only consider
  the "dual" specification= . WG=20 opinion on this is requested.

  Again, it would be ve= ry=20 beneficial to the WG if current
  implementors of stream= ing=20 protocols would/could speak-up and
  give their opinion = (see=20 point 4 below).

2. Peer Protocol - Security=20 Section
  The IESG will not accept any protocol specifica= tion=20 without a
  consistent security section (IOW: way more t= han=20 what we
  currently have) although there are some argume= nts on=20 whether
  we need the security mechanisms in the base=20 spec.

  Arno and Zong Ning proposed some text and we = need=20 to agree/amend
  it asap so to update the draft. I'd lik= e to=20 close this one and
  have a new version of the draft for= next=20 meeting.

3. Tracker Protocol
  After IETF83 we agr= eed to=20 split into two distinct drafts: base
  specification and= =20 optional extensions.

  Authors, it would be good to h= ave a=20 first submission before next
  meeting.

4. Survey= =20 draft.
  We need to refresh/re-submit and the chairs prop= osed=20 the
  authors/editors to include a section on deployment= =20 experiences
  and more precisely on chunk addressing and= =20 security mechanisms.
  Hopefully this will also feed ong= oing=20 discussions.

5. Meeting during IETF84.
  We have=20 requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone
  interes= ted,=20 please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or=20
  myself.

Let us know if anything is=20 missing.

Thanks.

Stefano &=20 Yunfei
_______________________________________________
ppsp mail= ing=20 list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

------=_001_NextPart311738646867_=------ From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Wed Jun 27 18:46:58 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 06E4711E8176 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:46:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.188 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.436, 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 eU99DDfep1NU for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D78411E8173 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C84E6D3; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:46:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89784E6B6; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:46:52 +0800 (CST) Received: from zyf-PC ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012062809465011-2731 ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:46:50 +0800 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:46:39 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: "Rui Cruz" , "Johan Pouwelse" References: , X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2012062809463963273025@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-28 09:46:50, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-28 09:46:52, Serialize complete at 2012-06-28 09:46:52 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart023312545132_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-19002.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--49.684-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--49.684-7.0-31-10;No--49.684-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Cc: 'Rui Cruz' , ppsp Subject: Re: [ppsp] Progress on core tracker protocol? 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, 28 Jun 2012 01:46:58 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart023312545132_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" VGhhbmsgUnVpIGZvciB0aGUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24uIA0KUC5TLjogRm9yIHRoZSBXRywgQXJubyBo YXMgcHVibGlzaGVkIGEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgdGhlIHBlZXIgcHJvdG9jb2wuIFBsZWFzZSBy ZXZpZXcgaXQgYW5kIHB1Ymxpc2ggeW91ciBjb21tZW50cy4gVGhhbmtzLg0KDQpCUg0KWXVuZmVp DQoNCg0KDQoNCnpoYW5neXVuZmVpDQoNCkZyb206IFJ1aSBDcnV6DQpEYXRlOiAyMDEyLTA2LTI4 IDAwOjQxDQpUbzogSm9oYW4gUG91d2Vsc2UNCkNDOiBSdWkgQ3J1ejsgcHBzcA0KU3ViamVjdDog UmU6IFtwcHNwXSBQcm9ncmVzcyBvbiBjb3JlIHRyYWNrZXIgcHJvdG9jb2w/DQpUaGUgUFBTUC1U UCBiYXNlIFRyYWNrZXIgUHJvdG9jb2wgZHJhZnQgd2lsbCBiZSBwdWJsaXNoZWQgYmVmb3JlIHRo ZSBlbmQgb2YgSnVuZS4NCkl0IGRvZXMgZXNzZW50aWFsbHkgd2hhdCB3ZSBoYWQgZGlzY3Vzc2Vk IGR1cmluZyBJRVRGIDgzLg0KVGhlIFBQU1AtVFAgRXh0ZW5kZWQgVHJhY2tlciBQcm90b2NvbCB3 aWxsIGJyaW5nIGFsbCB0aG9zZSBtb3JlIHNvcGhpc3RpY2F0ZWQgZmVhdHVyZXMsIGFuZCB3aWxs IGJlIHB1Ymxpc2hlZCBhZnRlcndhcmRzIChkdXJpbmcgSnVseSkNCg0KDQpDdW1wcmltZW50b3Mv UmVnYXJkcywNClJ1aSBDcnV6DQoNCg0KU2VudCBmcm9tIG15IGlQYWQyDQoNCk9uIDI3LzA2LzIw MTIsIGF0IDE2OjUyLCBKb2hhbiBQb3V3ZWxzZSA8cGVlcjJwZWVyQGdtYWlsLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6 DQoNCg0KVGhlcmUgd2FzIGFncmVlbWVudCBmb3IgdGhlIG5lZWQgdG8gY3JlYXRlIGEgY29yZSB0 cmFja2VyIHByb3RvY29sLiBBbnkgcHJvZ3Jlc3MgdG8gcmVwb3J0LCBzaW5jZSBsYXN0IG1vbnRo Pw0KV2hhdCBkbyB5b3UgdGhpbmsgb2YgbXkgcHJvcG9zYWwgYmVsb3cgZm9yIHRoZSBmb2N1cyBv ZiB0aGlzIHJlYWxseS1saW1pdGVkLXRvLXRoZS1jb3JlIHByb3RvY29sPw0KDQoNCg0KDQpUaGlz IGRvY3VtZW50IHNwZWNpZmllcyB0aGUgUGVlci10by1QZWVyIFN0cmVhbWluZyBQcm90b2NvbC0t Q29yZSBUcmFja2VyIFByb3RvY29sIChQUFNQLUNUUCksIGFuIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9uLWxheWVyIGNv bnRyb2wgcHJvdG9jb2wgZm9yIGZhY2lsaXRhdGluZyBQZWVyLTItUGVlciBzdHJlYW1pbmcuIFRo aXMgY29yZSBwcm90b2NvbCBpcyBsaW1pdGVkIHRvIGEgcGVlciBkaXNjb3ZlcnkgcmVxdWVzdCBt ZXNzYWdlIGFuZCByZXBseSBtZXNzYWdlLg0KVGhlIFBQU1AtQ1RQIHByb3RvY29sIGlzIGxpbWl0 ZWQgdG8gdGhlIEdFVC1QRUVSUyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBzdWJzZXF1ZW50IHJlcGx5IHdpdGggYSBw ZWVyIGxpc3QuIFRoaXMgY29yZSBwcm90b2NvbCBpcyB0aGUgb25seSByZXF1aXJlbWVudCBmb3Ig YSBzaW1wbGUgc3RyZWFtaW5nIHNlcnZpY2UsIGFsb25nIHdpdGggdGhlIFBQU1AgcGVlciBwcm90 b2NvbC4gV2UgcmVmZXIgdG8gYW4gdXBjb21pbmcgRXh0ZW5kZWQgVHJhY2tlciBQcm90b2NvbCBm b3IgbW9yZSBzb3BoaXN0aWNhdGVkIGZlYXR1cmVzLiBGb3IgaW5zdGFuY2UsICB0aGUgZXhjaGFu Z2Ugb2YgbWV0YSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiwgY29udGVudCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiwgc3RhdGlzdGljcyBy ZXBvcnRpbmcsIGV0Yy4NCg0KDQoNCg0KIC1qb2hhbi4NCk9uIFR1ZXNkYXksIEp1bmUgNSwgMjAx MiwgUnVpIENydXogd3JvdGU6DQoNCkhpLA0KDQoNClRoZSBUcmFja2VyIFByb3RvY29sIGlzICBi ZWluZyBzcGxpdCB0byBhIGJhc2Ugc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBkcmFmdCBhbmQgdG8gZXh0ZW5zaW9u cy4NCldlIGhvcGUgdG8gaGF2ZSB0aGUgYmFzZSBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBpbiBh IGNvdXBsZSBvZiB3ZWVrcy4gDQoNCg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KDQoNClJ1aSBDcnV6DQpydWkuY3J1 ekBpZWVlLm9yZw0KDQoNCklTVC9JTkVTQy1JRC9JTk9WIC0gTGlzYm9uLCBQb3J0dWdhbA0KX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpwcHNwIG1haWxpbmcgbGlz dA0KcHBzcEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9w cHNwDQoNCg0KT24gMDQvMDYvMjAxMiwgYXQgMTA6MzksIHN0ZWZhbm8gcHJldmlkaSB3cm90ZToN Cg0KDQpBbGwsDQoNCmhlcmUgYXJlIHNvbWUgbm90ZXMgaSBwcmVwYXJhdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgbmV4 dCBQUFNQIG1lZXRpbmcgd2UncmUgDQpnb2luZyB0byBoYXZlIGluIFZhbmNvdXZlciAoaHR0cDov L3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tZWV0aW5nLzg0L2luZGV4Lmh0bWwpDQoNCjEuIFBlZXIgUHJvdG9jb2wg LSBjaHVuayBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIG1lY2hhbmlzbQ0KICBXZSBjdXJyZW50bHkgaGF2ZSB0d28gcHJv cG9zYWxzIHRoYXQgSSdkIHRyeSB0byBuYW1lIGFzOg0KLiBCaW4gTm90YXRpb24NCi4gUmFuZ2Vz DQogIEJvdGggcHJvcG9zYWxzIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBkaXNjdXNzZWQgaW4gdGhlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlz dCBhbmQgaXQgDQogIGxvb2tzIHRvIG1lIHdlJ3JlIE5PVCBhY2hpZXZpbmcgYWdyZWVtZW50L2Nv bnNlbnN1cyBvbiBhbnkgb2YgDQogIHRoZW0gYWxzbyBkdWUgdG8gbGFjayBvZiBwYXJ0aWNpcGF0 aW9uIG9mIHRoZSBXRyBpbnRvIHRoZSANCiAgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiAob3RoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgYXV0 aG9ycyBvZiBlYWNoIHByb3Bvc2FsKS4NCg0KICBUaGVyZWZvcmUsIGFzIG9mIHRvZGF5LCB3ZSBj YW4gcmVhc29uYWJseSBleHBsb3JlIHRoZSANCiAgZm9sbG93aW5nIG9wdGlvbnM6DQogIE9wdGlv bi0xOiBXZSBwcm9wb3NlIGJvdGggc29sdXRpb25zIGluIHRoZSBwZWVyIHByb3RvY29sIA0KICAg ICAgICAgICAgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgd2UgZGVmaW5lIHRoZW0gYm90aCBNQU5EQVRPUlkg c28gDQogICAgICAgICAgICB0byBjb3BlIHdpdGggaW50ZXJvcGVyYWJpbGl0eSBpc3N1ZXMuDQog IE9wdGlvbi0yOiB3ZSBzZWxlY3Qgb25lIG9wdGlvbiB0aHJvdWdoIGEgV0cgdm90ZSAodGhpcyBp cyBteSANCiAgICAgICAgICAgIGxlYXN0IHByZWZlcnJlZCBvcHRpb24pLg0KDQogIFNpbmNlIEkn ZCByZWFsbHkgcHJlZmVyIHRvIGF2b2lkIE9wdGlvbi0yLCBJIGNhbiBvbmx5IGNvbnNpZGVyIA0K ICB0aGUgImR1YWwiIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24uIFdHIG9waW5pb24gb24gdGhpcyBpcyByZXF1ZXN0 ZWQuDQoNCiAgQWdhaW4sIGl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIHZlcnkgYmVuZWZpY2lhbCB0byB0aGUgV0cgaWYg Y3VycmVudCANCiAgaW1wbGVtZW50b3JzIG9mIHN0cmVhbWluZyBwcm90b2NvbHMgd291bGQvY291 bGQgc3BlYWstdXAgYW5kIA0KICBnaXZlIHRoZWlyIG9waW5pb24gKHNlZSBwb2ludCA0IGJlbG93 KS4NCg0KMi4gUGVlciBQcm90b2NvbCAtIFNlY3VyaXR5IFNlY3Rpb24NCiAgVGhlIElFU0cgd2ls bCBub3QgYWNjZXB0IGFueSBwcm90b2NvbCBzcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uIHdpdGhvdXQgYSANCiAgY29u c2lzdGVudCBzZWN1cml0eSBzZWN0aW9uIChJT1c6IHdheSBtb3JlIHRoYW4gd2hhdCB3ZSANCiAg Y3VycmVudGx5IGhhdmUpIGFsdGhvdWdoIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBzb21lIGFyZ3VtZW50cyBvbiB3aGV0 aGVyIA0KICB3ZSBuZWVkIHRoZSBzZWN1cml0eSBtZWNoYW5pc21zIGluIHRoZSBiYXNlIHNwZWMu DQoNCiAgQXJubyBhbmQgWm9uZyBOaW5nIHByb3Bvc2VkIHNvbWUgdGV4dCBhbmQgd2UgbmVlZCB0 byBhZ3JlZS9hbWVuZCANCiAgaXQgYXNhcCBzbyB0byB1cGRhdGUgdGhlIGRyYWZ0LiBJJ2QgbGlr ZSB0byBjbG9zZSB0aGlzIG9uZSBhbmQgDQogIGhhdmUgYSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgZHJh ZnQgZm9yIG5leHQgbWVldGluZy4NCg0KMy4gVHJhY2tlciBQcm90b2NvbA0KICBBZnRlciBJRVRG ODMgd2UgYWdyZWVkIHRvIHNwbGl0IGludG8gdHdvIGRpc3RpbmN0IGRyYWZ0czogYmFzZSANCiAg c3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgb3B0aW9uYWwgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucy4NCg0KICBBdXRob3JzLCBpdCB3 b3VsZCBiZSBnb29kIHRvIGhhdmUgYSBmaXJzdCBzdWJtaXNzaW9uIGJlZm9yZSBuZXh0IA0KICBt ZWV0aW5nLg0KDQo0LiBTdXJ2ZXkgZHJhZnQuDQogIFdlIG5lZWQgdG8gcmVmcmVzaC9yZS1zdWJt aXQgYW5kIHRoZSBjaGFpcnMgcHJvcG9zZWQgdGhlIA0KICBhdXRob3JzL2VkaXRvcnMgdG8gaW5j bHVkZSBhIHNlY3Rpb24gb24gZGVwbG95bWVudCBleHBlcmllbmNlcyANCiAgYW5kIG1vcmUgcHJl Y2lzZWx5IG9uIGNodW5rIGFkZHJlc3NpbmcgYW5kIHNlY3VyaXR5IG1lY2hhbmlzbXMuIA0KICBI b3BlZnVsbHkgdGhpcyB3aWxsIGFsc28gZmVlZCBvbmdvaW5nIGRpc2N1c3Npb25zLg0KDQo1LiBN ZWV0aW5nIGR1cmluZyBJRVRGODQuDQogIFdlIGhhdmUgcmVxdWVzdGVkIGEgc2xvdCBmb3IgVmFu Y291dmVyIG1lZXRpbmcuIEFueW9uZSANCiAgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCwgcGxlYXNlIHJlcXVlc3QgYW4g YWdlbmRhIHNsb3QgYXNhcCB0byBZdW5mZWkgb3IgDQogIG15c2VsZi4NCg0KTGV0IHVzIGtub3cg aWYgYW55dGhpbmcgaXMgbWlzc2luZy4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLg0KDQpTdGVmYW5vICYgWXVuZmVpDQpf X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KcHBzcCBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QNCnBwc3BAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlz dGluZm8vcHBzcA0KDQoNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX18NCnBwc3AgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpwcHNwQGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5p ZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3Bwc3A= ------=_001_NextPart023312545132_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312"
Thank Rui for the information.
P.S.: For the WG, Arno has published a new version of the peer protoc= ol.=20 Please review it and publish your comments. Thanks.
 
BR
Yunfei
 
zhangyunfei
 
From: Rui Cruz
Date: 2012-06-28 00:41
CC: Rui Cruz; ppsp
Subject: Re: [ppsp] Progress on core tracker=20 protocol?
The PPSP-TP base Tracker Protocol draft will be published before the = end of=20 June.
It does essentially what we had discussed during IETF 83.
The PPSP-TP Extended Tracker Protocol will bring all those more=20 sophisticated features, and will be published afterwards (during July)
=
Cumprimentos/Regards,
Rui Cruz

Sent from my iPad2

On 27/06/2012, at 16:52, Johan Pouwelse <peer2peer@gmail.com>=20 wrote:

There was agreement for the need to create a core tracker protocol.= Any=20 progress to report, since last month?
What do you think of my proposal below for the focus of this=20 really-limited-to-the-core protocol?


This document specifies the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol--Core=20 Tracker Protocol (PPSP-CTP), an application-layer control protocol = for=20 facilitating Peer-2-Peer streaming. This core protocol is limited to a p= eer=20 discovery request message and reply message.
The PPSP-CTP protocol is limited to the GET-PEERS message and subse= quent=20 reply with a peer list. This core protocol is the only requirement for a= =20 simple streaming service, along with the PPSP peer protocol. We refer to= an=20 upcoming Extended Tracker Protocol for more sophisticated features. For=20 instance,  the exchange of meta information, content informati= on,=20 statistics reporting, etc.


 -johan.
On Tuesday, June 5, 2012, R= ui=20 Cruz wrote:
Hi,

The Tracker Protocol is  being split to a base specification= draft=20 and to extensions.
We hope to have the base specification submitted in a couple of=20 weeks. 


Regards,

Rui Cruz
rui.cruz@ieee.org

IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal=
__________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp<= /DIV>

On 04/06/2012, at 10:39, stefano previdi wrote:

All,

here are some notes i preparation of the next PPSP=20 meeting we're
going to have in Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html)
1.=20 Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism
  We current= ly=20 have two proposals that I'd try to name as:
. Bin Notation
.=20 Ranges
  Both proposals have been discussed in the mail= ing=20 list and it
  looks to me we're NOT achieving=20 agreement/consensus on any of
  them also due to lack = of=20 participation of the WG into the
  discussion (other t= han=20 the authors of each proposal).

  Therefore, as of t= oday,=20 we can reasonably explore the
  following=20 options:
  Option-1: We propose both solutions in the p= eer=20 protocol=20
          &nbs= p; specification=20 and we define them both MANDATORY so=20
          &nbs= p; to=20 cope with interoperability issues.
  Option-2: we selec= t one=20 option through a WG vote (this is my=20
          &nbs= p; least=20 preferred option).

  Since I'd really prefer to avo= id=20 Option-2, I can only consider
  the "dual" specificati= on. WG=20 opinion on this is requested.

  Again, it would be = very=20 beneficial to the WG if current
  implementors of stre= aming=20 protocols would/could speak-up and
  give their opinio= n (see=20 point 4 below).

2. Peer Protocol - Security=20 Section
  The IESG will not accept any protocol specifi= cation=20 without a
  consistent security section (IOW: way more= than=20 what we
  currently have) although there are some argu= ments=20 on whether
  we need the security mechanisms in the ba= se=20 spec.

  Arno and Zong Ning proposed some text and w= e need=20 to agree/amend
  it asap so to update the draft. I'd l= ike to=20 close this one and
  have a new version of the draft f= or=20 next meeting.

3. Tracker Protocol
  After IETF83= we=20 agreed to split into two distinct drafts: base=20
  specification and optional=20 extensions.

  Authors, it would be good to have a f= irst=20 submission before next
  meeting.

4. Survey=20 draft.
  We need to refresh/re-submit and the chairs pr= oposed=20 the
  authors/editors to include a section on deployme= nt=20 experiences
  and more precisely on chunk addressing a= nd=20 security mechanisms.
  Hopefully this will also feed o= ngoing=20 discussions.

5. Meeting during IETF84.
  We have= =20 requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone
  inter= ested,=20 please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or=20
  myself.

Let us know if anything is=20 missing.

Thanks.

Stefano &=20 Yunfei
_______________________________________________
ppsp ma= iling=20 list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp

_______________________________________________
ppsp=20 mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org= /mailman/listinfo/ppsp
------=_001_NextPart023312545132_=------ From zhangyunfei@chinamobile.com Thu Jun 28 18:47:48 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 50A0E11E8112 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:47:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.151 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RELAY_IS_221=2.222, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N4PgywZJiZue for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF4511E8085 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:47:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA1F3E7F3 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:47:46 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1180E7E7 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:47:46 +0800 (CST) Received: from zyf-PC ([10.2.43.220]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2012062909474397-2525 ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:47:43 +0800 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:47:32 +0800 From: zhangyunfei To: ppsp X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.85[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2012062909473273303857@chinamobile.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-29 09:47:43, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2012-06-29 09:47:45, Serialize complete at 2012-06-29 09:47:45 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart725882785715_=----" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-19004.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--17.248-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--17.248-7.0-31-10;No--17.248-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No;No Subject: [ppsp] Fw: ppsp - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 84 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: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 01:47:48 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart725882785715_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" SGkgYWxsLA0KICAgIFBQU1Agc2Vzc2lvbiBoYXMgYmVlbiBpbml0aWFsbHkgc2NoZWR1bGVkIGZv ciBJRVRGODQgb24gV2VzIE1vcm5pbmcuIFBsZWFzZSBsb29rIGF0IHRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBm b3IgZGV0YWlsLiBOb3RlIHRoYXQgYmVmb3JlIHRoZSBmb3JtYWwgYWdlbmRhIHB1Ymxpc2hlZCwg dGhlIHRpbWUgc2xvdCBpcyBzdWJqZWN0IHRvIGNoYW5nZS4gDQoNCkJSDQpZdW5mZWkNCg0KDQoN Cg0Kemhhbmd5dW5mZWkNCg0KRnJvbTogXElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXRcIiINCkRhdGU6IDIwMTIt MDYtMjkgMDQ6MDUNClRvOiB6aGFuZ3l1bmZlaQ0KQ0M6IHBwc3AtYWRzOyB6aGFuZ3l1bmZlaTsg c3ByZXZpZGk7IHdsbw0KU3ViamVjdDogcHBzcCAtIFJlcXVlc3RlZCBzZXNzaW9uIGhhcyBiZWVu IHNjaGVkdWxlZCBmb3IgSUVURiA4NA0KRGVhciBZdW5mZWkgWmhhbmcsDQoNClRoZSBzZXNzaW9u KHMpIHRoYXQgeW91IGhhdmUgcmVxdWVzdGVkIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBzY2hlZHVsZWQuDQpCZWxvdyBp cyB0aGUgc2NoZWR1bGVkIHNlc3Npb24gaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gZm9sbG93ZWQgYnkNCnRoZSBvcmln aW5hbCByZXF1ZXN0LiANCg0KcHBzcCBTZXNzaW9uIDEgKDI6MzA6MDApDQogICAgV2VkbmVzZGF5 LCBNb3JuaW5nIFNlc3Npb24gSSAwOTAwLTExMzANCiAgICBSb29tIE5hbWU6IEdlb3JnaWEgQQ0K ICAgIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KICAgIA0K DQoNClJlcXVlc3QgSW5mb3JtYXRpb246DQoNCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQpXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwIE5hbWU6IA0KQXJl YSBOYW1lOiANClNlc3Npb24gUmVxdWVzdGVyOiANCg0KTnVtYmVyIG9mIFNlc3Npb25zOiAxDQpM ZW5ndGggb2YgU2Vzc2lvbihzKTogIDIuNSBIb3Vycw0KTnVtYmVyIG9mIEF0dGVuZGVlczogNTAN CkNvbmZsaWN0cyB0byBBdm9pZDogDQogRmlyc3QgUHJpb3JpdHk6IGlkciBwMnBzaXAgY2RuaSBh bHRvIHRzdmFyZWENCiBTZWNvbmQgUHJpb3JpdHk6IGh0dHBiaXMgZGVjYWRlDQogVGhpcmQgUHJp b3JpdHk6IHJ0Y3dlYg0KDQoNClNwZWNpYWwgUmVxdWVzdHM6DQogIEl0JiMzOTtzIHByZWZlcnJl ZCBub3QgYmUgaGVsZCBvbiBGcmlkYXkuDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0= ------=_001_NextPart725882785715_=---- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" =EF=BB=BF
Hi all,
    PPSP session has been initially scheduled for= =20 IETF84 on Wes Morning. Please look at the information for detail. Note tha= t=20 before the formal agenda published, the time slot is subject to change.
 
BR
Yunfei
 
zhangyunfei
 
Date: 2012-06-29 04:05
To: zhangyunfei
CC: ppsp-ads; zhangyunfei; sprevidi; wlo
Subject: ppsp - Requested session has been scheduled for = IETF=20 84
Dear Yunfei Zhang,
 
The session(s) that you have requested = have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information&n= bsp;followed by
the original request. 
 
ppsp Session 1 (2:30:00)
    Wednesday, Morning Session I&n= bsp;0900-1130
    Room Name: Georgia A
    ---------------------------------------------=
    
 
 
Request Information:
 
 
---------------------------------------------------------
Working Group Name: 
Area Name: 
Session Requester: 
 
Number of Sessions: 1
Length of Session(s):  2.5 Hours
Number of Attendees: 50
Conflicts to Avoid: 
 First Priority: idr p2psip cdni alto&n= bsp;tsvarea
 Second Priority: httpbis decade
 Third Priority: rtcweb
 
 
Special Requests:
  It&#39;s preferred not be held&nb= sp;on Friday.
---------------------------------------------------------
 
------=_001_NextPart725882785715_=------ From rui.cruz@ieee-pt.org Fri Jun 29 09:45:55 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 D4DD921F87F7 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:45:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.452, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_LOAN=2.3, 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 22D1EZ-+M4p0 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1CB521F87ED for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so2218264wgb.13 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:45:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:x-priority:in-reply-to:date :cc:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=d3qr8jSPQUB2rFRBGU3HAB03jpmDwvFTiVtJQMAx6qA=; b=kXrc0xdKvNvXJnvptkzVcEfVtyRC4e4K1A/2G3e5T9V2OjLisyqSFqLQut1hEYxvcK 7SkzTlzTukaR6T5lVN+jxJ8i5sV6cac2U8A5zfFJghw/D7xE3Yz3VH0xYe3N+xmmfkjn JmVxvScKpcplU/ZOzgzGyjL/tSDHRQ+MQv4vJCpCOK6Caf+l30+sWx9DlgXZy0uzDIzQ 5f52NeVjQ7vQIYOymGh1gsPLNPdtkmnWtmKciGw4wm9THOcuT8ZHYoFeTSp8VGRcHxgg zISAiUnZoPsHDV1HaL3syb4o73K4fTzRKTWfXJ6VNvuBY5d2es78FJFYWsGiTOD0qyp9 zu+w== Received: by 10.216.19.195 with SMTP id n45mr1129896wen.69.1340988345798; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from airia.casa (89-180-47-242.net.novis.pt. [89.180.47.242]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ce3sm11415218wib.11.2012.06.29.09.45.43 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B8D3207A-E46C-4B84-B4A9-E3121EBC632E" From: Rui Cruz X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: <2012062809463963273025@chinamobile.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:45:42 +0100 Message-Id: References: , <2012062809463963273025@chinamobile.com> To: zhangyunfei X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlJdlL4TJdU83B9yWbqH9G/AVpPV8yM+N7//MSQoaEz+EULcQQJerZHI4wK5urYE+U9FbDX Cc: ppsp Subject: Re: [ppsp] Progress on core tracker protocol? 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: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:45:55 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B8D3207A-E46C-4B84-B4A9-E3121EBC632E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Hi, Just to inform you that the Base Tracker Protocol was published a while = ago. A new version of I-D, draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Rui Santos Cruz and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol Revision: 00 Title: PPSP Tracker Protocol--Base Protocol (PPSP-TP/1.0) Creation date: 2012-06-29 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 41 URL: = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-= 00.txt Status: = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol Htmlized: = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-00 Abstract: This document specifies the base Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol- Tracker Protocol (PPSP-TP/1.0), an application-layer control (signaling) protocol for the exchange of meta information between trackers and peers. The specification outlines the architecture of the protocol and its functionality, and describes message flows, message processing instructions, message formats, formal syntax and semantics. The PPSP Tracker Protocol enables cooperating peers to form content streaming overlay networks to support near real-time Structured Media content (audio, video, associated timed text and metadata) delivery, such as adaptive multi-rate, layered (scalable) and multi-view (3D), in live, time-shifted and on-demand modes. Regards, Rui Cruz rui.cruz@ieee.org IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal __________________________________________ ppsp mailing list ppsp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp On 28/06/2012, at 02:46, zhangyunfei wrote: > Thank Rui for the information. > P.S.: For the WG, Arno has published a new version of the peer = protocol. Please review it and publish your comments. Thanks. > =20 > BR > Yunfei > =20 > zhangyunfei > =20 > From: Rui Cruz > Date: 2012-06-28 00:41 > To: Johan Pouwelse > CC: Rui Cruz; ppsp > Subject: Re: [ppsp] Progress on core tracker protocol? > The PPSP-TP base Tracker Protocol draft will be published before the = end of June. > It does essentially what we had discussed during IETF 83. > The PPSP-TP Extended Tracker Protocol will bring all those more = sophisticated features, and will be published afterwards (during July) >=20 > Cumprimentos/Regards, > Rui Cruz >=20 > Sent from my iPad2 >=20 > On 27/06/2012, at 16:52, Johan Pouwelse wrote: >=20 >> There was agreement for the need to create a core tracker protocol. = Any progress to report, since last month? >> What do you think of my proposal below for the focus of this = really-limited-to-the-core protocol? >>=20 >>=20 >> This document specifies the Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol--Core = Tracker Protocol (PPSP-CTP), an application-layer control protocol for = facilitating Peer-2-Peer streaming. This core protocol is limited to a = peer discovery request message and reply message. >> The PPSP-CTP protocol is limited to the GET-PEERS message and = subsequent reply with a peer list. This core protocol is the only = requirement for a simple streaming service, along with the PPSP peer = protocol. We refer to an upcoming Extended Tracker Protocol for more = sophisticated features. For instance, the exchange of meta information, = content information, statistics reporting, etc. >>=20 >>=20 >> -johan. >> On Tuesday, June 5, 2012, Rui Cruz wrote: >> Hi, >>=20 >> The Tracker Protocol is being split to a base specification draft = and to extensions. >> We hope to have the base specification submitted in a couple of = weeks.=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Regards, >>=20 >> Rui Cruz >> rui.cruz@ieee.org >>=20 >> IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, Portugal >> __________________________________________ >> ppsp mailing list >> ppsp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp >>=20 >> On 04/06/2012, at 10:39, stefano previdi wrote: >>=20 >>> All, >>>=20 >>> here are some notes i preparation of the next PPSP meeting we're=20 >>> going to have in Vancouver = (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html) >>>=20 >>> 1. Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism >>> We currently have two proposals that I'd try to name as: >>> . Bin Notation >>> . Ranges >>> Both proposals have been discussed in the mailing list and it=20 >>> looks to me we're NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any of=20 >>> them also due to lack of participation of the WG into the=20 >>> discussion (other than the authors of each proposal). >>>=20 >>> Therefore, as of today, we can reasonably explore the=20 >>> following options: >>> Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer protocol=20 >>> specification and we define them both MANDATORY so=20 >>> to cope with interoperability issues. >>> Option-2: we select one option through a WG vote (this is my=20 >>> least preferred option). >>>=20 >>> Since I'd really prefer to avoid Option-2, I can only consider=20 >>> the "dual" specification. WG opinion on this is requested. >>>=20 >>> Again, it would be very beneficial to the WG if current=20 >>> implementors of streaming protocols would/could speak-up and=20 >>> give their opinion (see point 4 below). >>>=20 >>> 2. Peer Protocol - Security Section >>> The IESG will not accept any protocol specification without a=20 >>> consistent security section (IOW: way more than what we=20 >>> currently have) although there are some arguments on whether=20 >>> we need the security mechanisms in the base spec. >>>=20 >>> Arno and Zong Ning proposed some text and we need to agree/amend=20= >>> it asap so to update the draft. I'd like to close this one and=20 >>> have a new version of the draft for next meeting. >>>=20 >>> 3. Tracker Protocol >>> After IETF83 we agreed to split into two distinct drafts: base=20 >>> specification and optional extensions. >>>=20 >>> Authors, it would be good to have a first submission before next=20= >>> meeting. >>>=20 >>> 4. Survey draft. >>> We need to refresh/re-submit and the chairs proposed the=20 >>> authors/editors to include a section on deployment experiences=20 >>> and more precisely on chunk addressing and security mechanisms.=20 >>> Hopefully this will also feed ongoing discussions. >>>=20 >>> 5. Meeting during IETF84. >>> We have requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. Anyone=20 >>> interested, please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or=20 >>> myself. >>>=20 >>> Let us know if anything is missing. >>>=20 >>> Thanks. >>>=20 >>> Stefano & Yunfei >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ppsp mailing list >>> ppsp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> ppsp mailing list >> ppsp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp --Apple-Mail=_B8D3207A-E46C-4B84-B4A9-E3121EBC632E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312 Hi,

Just to inform you that the = Base Tracker Protocol was published a while = ago.

A new version of I-D, = draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-00.txt
has been successfully = submitted by Rui Santos Cruz and posted to the
IETF = repository.

Filename: =  draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol
Revision: =  00
Title:  PPSP Tracker Protocol--Base = Protocol (PPSP-TP/1.0)
Creation date:  2012-06-29
WG ID: =  Individual Submission
Number of pages: 41
URL: =             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cruz-ppsp-base-t= racker-protocol-00.txt
Status: =          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol=
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cruz-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-00=


Abstract:
  This document specifies the base = Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol-
  Tracker Protocol = (PPSP-TP/1.0), an application-layer control
  (signaling) = protocol for the exchange of meta information = between
  trackers and peers.  The specification = outlines the architecture of
  the protocol and its = functionality, and describes message flows,
  message = processing instructions, message formats, formal syntax = and
  semantics.  The PPSP Tracker Protocol enables = cooperating peers to
  form content streaming overlay = networks to support near real-time
  Structured Media = content (audio, video, associated timed text = and
  metadata) delivery, such as adaptive multi-rate, = layered (scalable)
  and multi-view (3D), in live, = time-shifted and on-demand modes.


Regards,

Rui = Cruz
<= font class=3D"Apple-style-span" = color=3D"#1555cb">
IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, = Portugal
__________________________________________
<= div>ppsp mailing = list

On 28/06/2012, at 02:46, zhangyunfei wrote:

Thank = Rui for the information.
P.S.: For the WG, Arno has published = a new version of the peer protocol. Please review it and publish your = comments. = Thanks.
 
BR
Yunfei
 
From: Rui = Cruz
Date: 2012-06-28 00:41
CC: Rui Cruz; ppsp
Subject: Re: = [ppsp] Progress on core tracker protocol?
peer2peer@gmail.com> = wrote:


Regards,

Rui = Cruz

IST/INESC-ID/INOV - Lisbon, = Portugal
__________________________________________
<= div>ppsp mailing list

On 04/06/2012, at 10:39, stefano previdi = wrote:

All,

here are some = notes i preparation of the next PPSP meeting we're 
going to have in = Vancouver (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/index.html)

1.= Peer Protocol - chunk addressing mechanism
  We currently = have two proposals that I'd try to name as:
. Bin Notation
. = Ranges
  Both proposals have been discussed in the mailing = list and it 
  looks to me = we're NOT achieving agreement/consensus on any of 
  them also = due to lack of participation of the WG into the 
  discussion = (other than the authors of each proposal).

  Therefore, = as of today, we can reasonably explore the 
  following = options:
  Option-1: We propose both solutions in the peer = protocol 
    &= nbsp;       specification and we = define them both MANDATORY so 
    &= nbsp;       to cope with = interoperability issues.
  Option-2: we select one option = through a WG vote (this is my 
    &= nbsp;       least preferred = option).

  Since I'd really prefer to avoid Option-2, I = can only consider 
  the "dual" = specification. WG opinion on this is = requested.

  Again, it would be very beneficial to the = WG if current 
  implementors = of streaming protocols would/could speak-up and 
  give their = opinion (see point 4 below).

2. Peer Protocol - Security = Section
  The IESG will not accept any protocol = specification without a 
  consistent = security section (IOW: way more than what we 
  currently = have) although there are some arguments on whether 
  we need the = security mechanisms in the base spec.

  Arno and Zong = Ning proposed some text and we need to agree/amend 
  it asap so = to update the draft. I'd like to close this one and 
  have a new = version of the draft for next meeting.

3. Tracker = Protocol
  After IETF83 we agreed to split into two = distinct drafts: base 
  specification= and optional extensions.

  Authors, it would be good = to have a first submission before next 
  meeting.
<= br>4. Survey draft.
  We need to refresh/re-submit and the = chairs proposed the 
  authors/edito= rs to include a section on deployment experiences 
  and more = precisely on chunk addressing and security mechanisms. 
  Hopefully = this will also feed ongoing discussions.

5. Meeting during = IETF84.
  We have requested a slot for Vancouver meeting. = Anyone 
  interested, = please request an agenda slot asap to Yunfei or 
  myself.
Let us know if anything is missing.

Thanks.

Stefano = & Yunfei
_______________________________________________
ppsp = mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp
=

ppsp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m= ailman/listinfo/ppsp

= --Apple-Mail=_B8D3207A-E46C-4B84-B4A9-E3121EBC632E--