From zongning@huawei.com Wed Jan 1 19:11:39 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554461AE123 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2014 19:11:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.739 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vF7vQS17DNwt for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2014 19:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB901AE109 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2014 19:11:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCB36078; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 03:11:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 03:11:14 +0000 Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 03:11:21 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.56]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 11:11:12 +0800 From: Zongning To: Xiajinwei , "ppsp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "ppsp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03.txt Thread-Index: AQHPBexBcfYUMm3f3Umy+J8iiP2985ptSWIAgAN5tpA= Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 03:11:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20131231055021.13519.81298.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.28] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [ppsp] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03.txt X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 03:11:39 -0000 SGksIEppbndlaSwNCg0KVGhhbmtzIGZvciB3b3JraW5nIG91dCB0aGUgbmV3IHJldmlzaW9uLg0K DQpQbGVhc2UgUFBTUCBmb2xrcyBnaXZlIHlvdXIgcmV2aWV3IGNvbW1lbnRzIHRvIGhlbHAgbW92 aW5nIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgZm9yd2FyZC4gV2Ugd2lsbCBsaWtlbHkgaG9sZCBhbiBhZC1ob2MgY2Fs bCBzb21ldGltZSBpbiB0aGlzIG1vbnRoIHRvIGRpc2N1c3MgZnVydGhlciBvcGVuIGlzc3VlcyBh bmQgZ2V0IGl0IGJldHRlciBwcmVwYXJlZCBmb3IgTG9uZG9uIElFVEYuDQoNCi1OaW5nDQoNCj4g LS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogcHBzcCBbbWFpbHRvOnBwc3AtYm91 bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIFhpYWppbndlaQ0KPiBTZW50OiBUdWVzZGF5LCBE ZWNlbWJlciAzMSwgMjAxMyAyOjAxIFBNDQo+IFRvOiBwcHNwLWNoYWlyc0B0b29scy5pZXRmLm9y ZzsgcHBzcEBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBbcHBzcF0g562U5aSNOiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBO b3RpZmljYXRpb24gLQ0KPiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBwc3AtYmFzZS10cmFja2VyLXByb3RvY29sLTAz LnR4dA0KPiANCj4gSGkgYWxsLA0KPiANCj4gQWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSA4OHRoIElFVEYgbWVl dGluZywgY2hhaXJzIGFzayB0byBmb2N1cyBvbiB0aGUgUFBTUC1UUA0KPiBtZXNzYWdlIHJlZ2Fy ZGxlc3Mgb2YgdGhlIGVuY29kaW5nIHR5cGUsIHNvIEkgdXBkYXRlZCB0aGUgZHJhZnQgYW5kIHVz ZSBDDQo+IGxhbmd1YWdlIHN5bnRheCB0byBkZXNjcmliZSB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZXMgaW4gb3JkZXIg dG8gbWFraW5nIHRoZSB3b3JrDQo+IHByb2dyZXNzZXMgZmFzdCwgYnV0IEkga25vdyB0aGVyZSBt dXN0IGJlIGxvdHMgb2YgZHJhd2JhY2tzIGluc2lkZSB0aGlzIDAzDQo+IHZlcnNpb24gYW5kIGl0 IG5lZWRzIG1vcmUgZWxhYm9yYXRpb24uDQo+IA0KPiBJIGxvb2sgZm9yd2FyZCB0byBzZWVpbmcg eW91ciB2YWx1YWJsZSBjb21tZW50cyBhbmQgaWRlYXMsIHNvIHdlIGNhbiBicmluZyB1cA0KPiBh IG1vcmUgbWF0dXJlIHZlcnNpb24gc29vbi4NCj4gDQo+IFRoYW5rIHlvdSENCj4gDQo+IEppbndl aQ0KPiANCj4gPiAtLS0tLemCruS7tuWOn+S7ti0tLS0tDQo+ID4g5Y+R5Lu25Lq6OiBpbnRlcm5l dC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddDQo+ID4g 5Y+R6YCB5pe26Ze0OiAyMDEz5bm0MTLmnIgzMeaXpSAxMzo1MA0KPiA+IOaUtuS7tuS6ujogcHBz cC1jaGFpcnNAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmc7DQo+ID4gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wcHNwLWJhc2UtdHJhY2tl ci1wcm90b2NvbEB0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZzsgbWxzLmlldGZAZ21haWwuY29tDQo+ID4g5Li76aKY OiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gLSBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBwc3AtYmFzZS10cmFja2Vy LXByb3RvY29sLTAzLnR4dA0KPiA+DQo+ID4NCj4gPiBBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uICgtMDMpIGhhcyBi ZWVuIHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBmb3INCj4gPiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBwc3AtYmFzZS10cmFja2VyLXByb3Rv Y29sOg0KPiA+DQo+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWll dGYtcHBzcC1iYXNlLXRyYWNrZXItcHJvdG9jb2wtMDMudHgNCj4gPiB0DQo+ID4NCj4gPg0KPiA+ IFRoZSBJRVRGIGRhdGF0cmFja2VyIHBhZ2UgZm9yIHRoaXMgSW50ZXJuZXQtRHJhZnQgaXM6DQo+ ID4gaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wcHNwLWJhc2Ut dHJhY2tlci1wcm90b2NvbC8NCj4gPg0KPiA+IERpZmYgZnJvbSBwcmV2aW91cyB2ZXJzaW9uOg0K PiA+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcmZjZGlmZj91cmwyPWRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcHBzcC1iYXNl LXRyYWNrZXItcHJvdG9jb2wtMDMNCj4gPg0KPiA+IFBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoYXQgaXQgbWF5IHRh a2UgYSBjb3VwbGUgb2YgbWludXRlcyBmcm9tIHRoZSB0aW1lIG9mIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24NCj4gPiB1 bnRpbCB0aGUgaHRtbGl6ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBhbmQgZGlmZiBhcmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0IHRvb2xz LmlldGYub3JnLg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gSUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdC4NCj4gDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IHBwc3AgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0 DQo+IHBwc3BAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5m by9wcHNwDQo= From zongning@huawei.com Tue Jan 7 23:39:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2551AE313 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 23:39:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.739 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wOoz7LWakenm for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 23:39:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7901AE30D for ; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 23:39:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCG11212; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 07:39:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 07:39:16 +0000 Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 07:39:40 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.56]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 15:39:35 +0800 From: Zongning To: "ppsp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-06.txt Thread-Index: AQHPDEQlYek8WC/+a0il9p/59NQ6LZp6cMCw Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 07:39:35 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.28] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [ppsp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ppsp-survey-06.txt X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 07:39:53 -0000 SGksIA0KDQpXZSBoYXZlIHVwbG9hZGVkIGEgbmV3IHJldmlzaW9uIG9mIHN1cnZleSBkcmFmdC4N ClRoYW5rcy4NCg0KLU5pbmcNCg0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBGcm9t OiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5v cmddDQo+IFNlbnQ6IFdlZG5lc2RheSwgSmFudWFyeSAwOCwgMjAxNCAzOjM1IFBNDQo+IFRvOiBG cmFuY2VzY2EgTG8gUGljY29sbzsgWXVuZmVpIFpoYW5nOyBTaGlodWkgRHVhbjsgWm9uZ25pbmc7 IEZyYW5jZXNjYSBMbw0KPiBQaWNjb2xvOyBHdSBZaW5namllOyBab25nbmluZzsgU2hpaHVpIER1 YW47IFl1bmZlaSBaaGFuZzsgWWluZ2ppZSBHdQ0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3Rp ZmljYXRpb24gZm9yIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcHBzcC1zdXJ2ZXktMDYudHh0DQo+IA0KPiANCj4gQSBu ZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtcHBzcC1zdXJ2ZXktMDYudHh0DQo+IGhhcyBi ZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgTmluZyBab25nIGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhl DQo+IElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCj4gDQo+IE5hbWU6CQlkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBwc3Atc3VydmV5 DQo+IFJldmlzaW9uOgkwNg0KPiBUaXRsZToJCVN1cnZleSBvZiBQMlAgU3RyZWFtaW5nIEFwcGxp Y2F0aW9ucw0KPiBEb2N1bWVudCBkYXRlOgkyMDE0LTAxLTA4DQo+IEdyb3VwOgkJcHBzcA0KPiBQ YWdlczoJCTIyDQo+IFVSTDoNCj4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMv ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1wcHNwLXN1cnZleS0wNi50eHQNCj4gU3RhdHVzOiAgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8v ZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtcHBzcC1zdXJ2ZXkvDQo+IEh0bWxp emVkOiAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBwc3Atc3Vy dmV5LTA2DQo+IERpZmY6ICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJs Mj1kcmFmdC1pZXRmLXBwc3Atc3VydmV5LTA2DQo+IA0KPiBBYnN0cmFjdDoNCj4gICAgVGhpcyBk b2N1bWVudCBwcmVzZW50cyBhIHN1cnZleSBvZiBzb21lIG9mIHRoZSBtb3N0IHBvcHVsYXIgUGVl ci10by0NCj4gICAgUGVlciAoUDJQKSBzdHJlYW1pbmcgYXBwbGljYXRpb25zIG9uIHRoZSBJbnRl cm5ldC4gIFRoZSBtYWluDQo+ICAgIHNlbGVjdGlvbiBjcml0ZXJpYSBoYXZlIGJlZW4gcG9wdWxh cml0eSBhbmQgYXZhaWxhYmlsaXR5IG9mDQo+ICAgIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIG9uIG9wZXJhdGlvbiBk ZXRhaWxzIGF0IHdyaXRpbmcgdGltZS4gIEluIGRvaW5nIHRoaXMsDQo+ICAgIHNlbGVjdGVkIGFw cGxpY2F0aW9ucyBhcmUgbm90IHJldmlld2VkIGFzIGEgd2hvbGUsIGJ1dCB0aGV5IGFyZQ0KPiAg ICByZXZpZXdlZCB3aXRoIG1haW4gZm9jdXMgb24gdGhlIHNpZ25hbGluZyBhbmQgY29udHJvbCBw cm90b2NvbCB1c2VkDQo+ICAgIHRvIGVzdGFibGlzaCBhbmQgbWFpbnRhaW4gb3ZlcmxheSBjb25u ZWN0aW9ucyBhbW9uZyBwZWVycyBhbmQgdG8NCj4gICAgYWR2ZXJ0aXNlIGFuZCBkb3dubG9hZCBz dHJlYW1pbmcgY29udGVudC4NCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IFBsZWFzZSBub3RlIHRoYXQgaXQg bWF5IHRha2UgYSBjb3VwbGUgb2YgbWludXRlcyBmcm9tIHRoZSB0aW1lIG9mIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24N Cj4gdW50aWwgdGhlIGh0bWxpemVkIHZlcnNpb24gYW5kIGRpZmYgYXJlIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCB0 b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy4NCj4gDQo+IFRoZSBJRVRGIFNlY3JldGFyaWF0DQoNCg== From zongning@huawei.com Thu Jan 23 19:23:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725131A0141 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:23:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.735 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T6hL6k_r6Ac6 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:23:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38421A012A for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:23:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCW24166; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:23:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:23:28 +0000 Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:23:45 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.56]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:23:39 +0800 From: Zongning To: "ppsp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: adhoc call on base tracker protocol Thread-Index: Ac8Ys6xKFUpZggbKQveShD36aENRTA== Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:23:38 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.28] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC6667792586DC9Dnkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [ppsp] adhoc call on base tracker protocol X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:23:51 -0000 --_000_B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC6667792586DC9Dnkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, all, As planned, Yunfei and I will organize an ad-hoc call to discuss further op= en issues on base tracker protocol, in order to get it better prepared for = London. If you are interested in joining the call, would you please let Yunfei and = I know your available time in next week - ideally from Monday to Wednesday = due to Chinese New Year holidays starting on Thursday? :) Thanks. Yunfei and Ning --_000_B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC6667792586DC9Dnkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, all,

 

As planned, Yunfei and I will o= rganize an ad-hoc call to discuss further open issues on base tracker proto= col, in order to get it better prepared for London.

If you are interested in joinin= g the call, would you please let Yunfei and I know your available time in n= ext week - ideally from Monday to Wednesday due to Chinese New Year holiday= s starting on Thursday? J

Thanks.

 

Yunfei and Ning

--_000_B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC6667792586DC9Dnkgeml501mbschi_-- From hishigh@gmail.com Fri Jan 24 17:25:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946831A0293 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:25:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H2oPMlLLIoDZ for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:25:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x22a.google.com (mail-ob0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A237B1A02B5 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:25:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id va2so4421494obc.1 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:25:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=8gz2KHx2Y3NsGIS6utUkBYvCKaaPPIxQagoRj+xEcIQ=; b=J8uKaEWhBUxquOi/fEGqxXy1GKELAcZdXOhO4ZBvoLCjK+8wmMFzwKd4scp3t33Iks yyeg6wYm2tRIVh54oaGhbE2y4XQs73KZE0HrluIpzWk1Q2kR6FKmL4HVCe4n04+Hgp5j iYU/qUDL07Jn0bUKch5xblm+mp4bmdXB2eHsKVgeaM9u9bkU2UqNeoFJWHL+CSKj+hOD ugvGPZNnaIY5AaNxzjRtbC5lbJ0hbp0KOTDYTFEPNvLAx617oZ/qaSN19YnjyeB06ho0 LpWSETknKgTNxTBHUbAELhLc6GEcVDGR/h79EKYgs2HSkKcoFIz1fnDLxsjNtaWgQHu1 R54g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.63.242 with SMTP id j18mr5158805oes.33.1390613104211; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:25:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.160.35 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:25:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:25:04 +0800 Message-ID: From: yunfei zhang To: Zongning Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2531c18db2e04f0c15821 Cc: "ppsp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ppsp] adhoc call on base tracker protocol X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 01:25:07 -0000 --001a11c2531c18db2e04f0c15821 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi all, I myself will be available on Jan 28 and 29. Evening time is preferred. BR Yunfei 2014/1/24 Zongning > Hi, all, > > > > As planned, Yunfei and I will organize an ad-hoc call to discuss further > open issues on base tracker protocol, in order to get it better prepared > for London. > > If you are interested in joining the call, would you please let Yunfei and > I know your available time in next week - ideally from Monday to Wednesday > due to Chinese New Year holidays starting on Thursday? J > > Thanks. > > > > Yunfei and Ning > > _______________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp > > --001a11c2531c18db2e04f0c15821 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
=A0 I myself will be available on J= an 28 and 29. Evening time is preferred.

BR
<= div>Yunfei


2014/1/24 Zongning <zongning@huawei.com>

Hi, all,

=A0

As planned, Yunfei and I will o= rganize an ad-hoc call to discuss further open issues on base tracker proto= col, in order to get it better prepared for London.

If you are interested in joinin= g the call, would you please let Yunfei and I know your available time in n= ext week - ideally from Monday to Wednesday due to Chinese New Year holiday= s starting on Thursday? J

Thanks.

=A0

Yunfei and Ning


_______________________________________________
ppsp mailing list
ppsp@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp


--001a11c2531c18db2e04f0c15821-- From rachel.huang@huawei.com Sat Jan 25 22:24:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5EF61A00FC for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:24:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.735 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EqZnFDTGLu0l for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EAF61A00ED for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:24:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BAK70230; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:24:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:24:02 +0000 Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:24:26 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.56]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:24:22 +0800 From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" To: "ppsp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: A question for the peer protocol Thread-Index: Ac8aXz/IXdkgZn5LS/2EQBEi4eJzLg== Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:24:21 +0000 Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C708@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.116] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C708nkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [ppsp] A question for the peer protocol X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:24:44 -0000 --_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C708nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, the authors of peer protocol, The peer protocol supports can use different chunk addressing methods, e.g.= 32-bit chunk ranges, 64-bit chunk ranges, 32-bit byte ranges, bins, etc. A= ll the peer MUST support "32-bit chunk ranges" and "64-bit chunk ranges" fo= r successful interactions. And all peers in one swarm MUST use the same chu= nk addressing method. But how do the peers know the chunk addressing method= for that swarm? I couldn't find the answer in the draft. Best regards, Rachel --_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C708nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, the authors of peer protocol,

 

The peer protocol supports can use different chunk a= ddressing methods, e.g. 32-bit chunk ranges, 64-bit chunk ranges, 32-bit by= te ranges, bins, etc. All the peer MUST support “32-bit chunk ranges&= #8221; and “64-bit chunk ranges” for successful interactions. And all peers in one swarm MUST use the same chunk addressin= g method. But how do the peers know the chunk addressing method for that sw= arm? I couldn’t find the answer in the draft.

 

Best regards,

Rachel

 

--_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C708nkgeml501mbschi_-- From rachel.huang@huawei.com Sat Jan 25 22:31:42 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31E391A0100 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:31:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.735 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7HzRaAGN_emw for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:31:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70EC1A00FC for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:31:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCX77069; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:31:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:31:25 +0000 Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:31:36 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.56]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:31:32 +0800 From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" To: "ppsp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ppsp] A question for the peer protocol Thread-Index: AQHPGmBAsetx27N7cUuRQgZl8R7ZqQ== Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:31:31 +0000 Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C720@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.116] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C720nkgeml501mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [ppsp] A question for the peer protocol X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 06:31:42 -0000 --_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C720nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry, forget to add the prefix in the title. Best regards, Rachel From: Huangyihong (Rachel) Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 2:24 PM To: ppsp@ietf.org Subject: A question for the peer protocol Hi, the authors of peer protocol, The peer protocol supports can use different chunk addressing methods, e.g.= 32-bit chunk ranges, 64-bit chunk ranges, 32-bit byte ranges, bins, etc. A= ll the peer MUST support "32-bit chunk ranges" and "64-bit chunk ranges" fo= r successful interactions. And all peers in one swarm MUST use the same chu= nk addressing method. But how do the peers know the chunk addressing method= for that swarm? I couldn't find the answer in the draft. Best regards, Rachel --_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C720nkgeml501mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sorry, forget to add t= he prefix in the title.

 

Best regards,

Rachel

 

From: Huangyih= ong (Rachel)
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 2:24 PM
To: ppsp@ietf.org
Subject: A question for the peer protocol

 

Hi, the authors of peer protocol,

 

The peer protocol supports can use different chunk a= ddressing methods, e.g. 32-bit chunk ranges, 64-bit chunk ranges, 32-bit by= te ranges, bins, etc. All the peer MUST support “32-bit chunk ranges&= #8221; and “64-bit chunk ranges” for successful interactions. And all peers in one swarm MUST use the same chunk addressin= g method. But how do the peers know the chunk addressing method for that sw= arm? I couldn’t find the answer in the draft.

 

Best regards,

Rachel

 

--_000_51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C720nkgeml501mbschi_-- From a.bakker@vu.nl Mon Jan 27 00:04:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D1C1A004D for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:04:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.641 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A40LrsYMWTIk for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:04:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007F51A002E for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:04:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from PEXHB011B.vu.local (130.37.236.65) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:04:03 +0100 Received: from [145.100.100.60] (130.37.253.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:04:01 +0100 Message-ID: <52E612FC.9040404@cs.vu.nl> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:04:12 +0100 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C708@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C708@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.253.20] Subject: Re: [ppsp] A question for the peer protocol X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: arno@cs.vu.nl List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 08:04:07 -0000 On 26/01/2014 07:24, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote: > Hi, the authors of peer protocol, > > The peer protocol supports can use different chunk addressing > methods, e.g. 32-bit chunk ranges, 64-bit chunk ranges, 32-bit byte > ranges, bins, etc. All the peer MUST support "32-bit chunk ranges" > and "64-bit chunk ranges" for successful interactions. And all peers > in one swarm MUST use the same chunk addressing method. But how do > the peers know the chunk addressing method for that swarm? I couldn't > find the answer in the draft. > Hi Rachel et al. the chunk addressing method is part of the metadata of the swarm (Sec. 12.1.1) and communicated as a protocol option (Sec. 7.8). Regards, Arno From rachel.huang@huawei.com Mon Jan 27 00:53:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7220E1A016A for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:53:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.736 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.736 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tVkJ6gq18_fV for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:53:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0481A0111 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:53:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCY58260; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 08:52:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 08:52:29 +0000 Received: from NKGEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.33) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 08:52:56 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.56]) by nkgeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.33]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:52:52 +0800 From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" To: "arno@cs.vu.nl" , "ppsp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ppsp] A question for the peer protocol Thread-Index: Ac8aXz/IXdkgZn5LS/2EQBEi4eJzLgAlA8cAABFD9+A= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 08:52:51 +0000 Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C8E3@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C708@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <52E612FC.9040404@cs.vu.nl> In-Reply-To: <52E612FC.9040404@cs.vu.nl> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.116] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [ppsp] A question for the peer protocol X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 08:53:07 -0000 Hi Arno, Thank you to point out. Is that metadata of the swarm allowed to include mu= ltiple chunk addressing methods? If not, what if the chunk addressing metho= d configured in the swarm is not supported by some peers? If yes, then how= do the peers know which one will be selected as the streaming chunk addres= sing method? HANDSHAKE only provides the negotiation between two peers. I t= hink there should be some clarifications in the draft.=20 Best regards, Rachel > -----Original Message----- > From: ppsp [mailto:ppsp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Arno Bakker > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 4:04 PM > To: ppsp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [ppsp] A question for the peer protocol >=20 > On 26/01/2014 07:24, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote: > > Hi, the authors of peer protocol, > > > > The peer protocol supports can use different chunk addressing > > methods, e.g. 32-bit chunk ranges, 64-bit chunk ranges, 32-bit byte > > ranges, bins, etc. All the peer MUST support "32-bit chunk ranges" > > and "64-bit chunk ranges" for successful interactions. And all peers > > in one swarm MUST use the same chunk addressing method. But how do > > the peers know the chunk addressing method for that swarm? I couldn't > > find the answer in the draft. > > >=20 > Hi Rachel et al. >=20 > the chunk addressing method is part of the metadata of the swarm (Sec. > 12.1.1) and communicated as a protocol option (Sec. 7.8). >=20 > Regards, > Arno >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ppsp mailing list > ppsp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ppsp From a.bakker@vu.nl Mon Jan 27 22:53:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB031A024F for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:53:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.041 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8wFdWh_YU00W for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:53:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902C31A022F for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:53:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from PEXHB012A.vu.local (130.37.236.66) by mailin.vu.nl (130.37.164.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:53:19 +0100 Received: from [192.168.0.103] (130.37.253.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:53:16 +0100 Message-ID: <52E753E9.3010502@cs.vu.nl> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:53:29 +0100 From: Arno Bakker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" References: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C708@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <52E612FC.9040404@cs.vu.nl> <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C8E3@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C8E3@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.253.20] Cc: "ppsp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ppsp] A question for the peer protocol X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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, 28 Jan 2014 06:53:22 -0000 On 27/01/2014 09:52, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote: > Hi Arno, > > Thank you to point out. Is that metadata of the swarm allowed to > include multiple chunk addressing methods? If not, what if the chunk > addressing method configured in the swarm is not supported by some > peers? If yes, then how do the peers know which one will be selected > as the streaming chunk addressing method? HANDSHAKE only provides the > negotiation between two peers. I think there should be some > clarifications in the draft. > Hi as you write "And all peers in one swarm MUST use the same chunk addressing method." If they don't support the one the content provider selected, they are out of luck. Regards, Arno From rachel.huang@huawei.com Tue Jan 28 00:12:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ppsp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5563B1A022D for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:12:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.736 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.736 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EyMEEKLePZ3b for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:12:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5873D1A02D2 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:12:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCZ92304; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:12:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:12:08 +0000 Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:12:25 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.56]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:12:18 +0800 From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" To: "arno@cs.vu.nl" Thread-Topic: [ppsp] A question for the peer protocol Thread-Index: Ac8aXz/IXdkgZn5LS/2EQBEi4eJzLgAlA8cAABFD9+AAHo5hgAATFlJQ Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:12:17 +0000 Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591CAD8@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C708@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <52E612FC.9040404@cs.vu.nl> <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591C8E3@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <52E753E9.3010502@cs.vu.nl> In-Reply-To: <52E753E9.3010502@cs.vu.nl> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.116] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "ppsp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ppsp] A question for the peer protocol X-BeenThere: ppsp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: discussing to draw up peer to peer streaming protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:12:32 -0000 Hi Arno, Yes, that's a solution. I expect it to be clearly written in the draft.=20 But I think mandating implementations MUST support "32-bit chunk ranges" an= d "64-bit chunk ranges" won't help much in this case. The swarm is possible= to be configured with some other methods. Best regards, Rachel > -----Original Message----- > From: Arno Bakker [mailto:arno@cs.vu.nl] > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 2:53 PM > To: Huangyihong (Rachel) > Cc: ppsp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [ppsp] A question for the peer protocol >=20 > On 27/01/2014 09:52, Huangyihong (Rachel) wrote: > > Hi Arno, > > > > Thank you to point out. Is that metadata of the swarm allowed to > > include multiple chunk addressing methods? If not, what if the chunk > > addressing method configured in the swarm is not supported by some > > peers? If yes, then how do the peers know which one will be selected > > as the streaming chunk addressing method? HANDSHAKE only provides the > > negotiation between two peers. I think there should be some > > clarifications in the draft. > > >=20 > Hi >=20 > as you write "And all peers in one swarm MUST use the same chunk > addressing method." If they don't support the one the content provider > selected, they are out of luck. >=20 > Regards, > Arno