Subject: [ppsp] 答复: ***SPAM*** 5.939 (5) review of base tracker protocol -07

From: Xiajinwei <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 02:53:27 +0000

Hi Mi Zhang,

Thanks for your comments, please see my responses inline.

发件人: ppsp [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Mi Zhang
发送时间: 2014年12月25日 9:07
收件人: [email-masked]
主题: [ppsp] ***SPAM*** 5.939 (5) review of base tracker protocol -07

Hi,

I have reviewed the PPSP-TP 07, it is very clear and neat. In general, I have no comments about the procedures, but there are some trivial problems:

1)        Section 2.3.2
 c) “transitions to TERMINATE state for that Peer ID and and the SM is destroyed.”

Duplicated “and”.

JW: will correct it.

2)        Section 6.12
Paragraph 5, “To provide more choices for the requesting peer, the tracker may select a new peer list with lower priority from the list of peers and return it to the requesting peer later.”

I am not sure “later” refers to what time or condition specifically.

JW: it depends on the actual implementation, up to PPSP provider to decide it.

3)        Section 6.3
Paragraph 3, “The tracker SHOULD be prepared to receive a Request with a repeated TransactionID.”

What kind of preparations SHOULD the tracker make?

JW: it needs to judge what error happen and response an corresponding error code.

4)        Section 7.1.2
Last sentence, “this specification does not details a migration path.”

“details” or “detail” ?

JW: will be “detail”.

5)        Section 8
Paragraph 2, “No security system can guarantees complete security….”

“guarantees” or “guarantee”?

 JW: will be “guarantee”.

BR
Jinwei

BR
Mi Zhang