Hi all,

=A0 =A0The PPSP session at IETF 89 is scheduled on=A0Tuesday afternoon, 1610-1840. If you are planning to present= in this session, please send your request (including title, presenter and = time length) to Ning and me before Feb 15. Thanks and see you all in London= .

Yunfei<= /div>

--089e01184baeba9ced04f22d773e-- From nobody Thu Feb 13 20:07:55 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 BD1F41A0040 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:07:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CN_BODY_35=0.339, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, 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 q0EcVYnvtpFh for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:07:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x22d.google.com (mail-ig0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B83D1A0081 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:07:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id c10so158330igq.0 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:07:50 -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 :content-type; bh=U/atX7jI+btdlOkynMQP4k/T+GZ3y+aFmRwByMU4lgM=; b=A4VZIDBJsDFqL0CvTFJ/SJ7l/QDZWuEZnz00vVyQGnWBkeBiNgE060Zf0eymFOrJZR 7JFaro1LR/MSy94BdPPRClCmW/WZQ/tMT1k3OZ0RTbmkP/3w7sYsQ872FiKtpnX6fRYX GRc6tFghCvA164+L8SJHK07SvTlc15XeEf+sgkjaEnPZqgp7Q2DkUnAelY04koflyAs6 AjssjNBS42Dv/E7oQ1R7kr+HNqYsE+B1TuRyIDHs0yAJKGbYbVsKxA7mjVaYJmJvvrrz AwDu+ilIDmsPxnfxrEQe4lp8wtDNi08zujevq57Ook49u1tLW/2INqmxd/s4d2J+RaDi VyDQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.137.100 with SMTP id qh4mr563752igb.34.1392350869956; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:07:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.152.228 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 20:07:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <007801cf293a$009090f0$01b1b2d0$@com> References: <007801cf293a$009090f0$01b1b2d0$@com> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:07:49 +0800 Message-ID: From: lingli deng To: "ppsp@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c31f7401dd3c04f255f3c3 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/R3JkqNWIMf5R1oTJmsV1r5lDnO4 Subject: [ppsp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap-05.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: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 04:07:54 -0000 --001a11c31f7401dd3c04f255f3c3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, We posted a new version of the BF scheme draft just now. Your review and comments are highly apreciated. BR ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: =B5=CB=C1=E9=C0=F2/Lingli Deng Date: 2014-02-14 12:05 GMT+08:00 Subject: =D7=AA=B7=A2: New Version Notification for draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitma= p-05.txt To: denglingli@gmail.com -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.o= rg] =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2014=C4=EA2=D4=C214=C8=D5 12:04 =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Yunfei Zhang; Yihong Huang; Jin Peng; Rachel Huang; Den= g Lingli; Jin Peng; Lingli Deng; Yunfei Zhang =D6=F7=CC=E2: New Version Notification for draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap-05.txt A new version of I-D, draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap-05.txt has been successfully submitted by Lingli Deng and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap Revision: 05 Title: Efficient Chunk Availability Compression for PPSP Document date: 2014-02-12 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 14 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap-05.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap/ Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap-05 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap= -05 Abstract: Bloom filters are proposed to be used in compressing chunk availability information, periodically exchanged between peers and the tracker through PPSP-TP and PPSPP protocols, to reduce relevant cost and enhance scalability. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat --=20 =B5=CB=C1=E9=C0=F2/Lingli Deng =D6=D0=B9=FA=D2=C6=B6=AF=CD=A8=D0=C5=D1=D0=BE=BF=D4=BA/China Mobile Researc= h Institute e-mail: denglingli@chinamobile.com tel: 15801696688-3367 mobile: 13810597148 --001a11c31f7401dd3c04f255f3c3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

We posted a new vers= ion of the BF scheme draft just now.

Your review and comments are= highly apreciated.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: =B5=CB=C1=E9=C0=F2/Lingli Deng <denglingli@chinamobile.com>Date: 2014-02-14 12:05 GMT+08:00
Subject: =D7=AA=B7=A2: New Version Notification for draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitma= p-05.txt
To: denglingli@gmail.co= m

-----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE-----
=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: internet-dr= afts@ietf.org [mailto:inter= net-drafts@ietf.org]
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2014=C4=EA2=D4=C214=C8=D5 12:04
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: Yunfei Zhang; Yihong Huang; Jin Peng; Rachel Huang; Den= g Lingli; Jin Peng; Lingli Deng; Yunfei Zhang
=D6=F7=CC=E2: New Version Notification for draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap-05.txt<= br>

A new version of I-D, draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap-05.txt
has been successfully submitted by Lingli Deng and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap
Revision: 05
Title: Efficient Chunk Availability Compr= ession for PPSP
Document date: 2014-02-12
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 14
URL: http:/= /www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap-05.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.= org/doc/draft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap/
Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-d= eng-ppsp-bfbitmap-05
Diff: http://www.ietf.= org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-deng-ppsp-bfbitmap-05

Abstract:
Bloom filters are proposed to be used in compressing chunk
availability information, periodically exchanged between peers= and
the tracker through PPSP-TP and PPSPP protocols, to reduce rel= evant
cost and enhance scalability.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

--
=B5=CB=C1=E9=C0=F2/Lingli Deng
= =D6=D0=B9=FA=D2=C6=B6=AF=CD=A8=D0=C5=D1=D0=BE=BF=D4=BA/China Mobile Researc= h Institute
e-mail: dengli= ngli@chinamobile.com
tel: 15801696688-3367
mobile: 13810597148

--001a11c31f7401dd3c04f255f3c3-- From nobody Thu Feb 13 21:54:54 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 006A11A0101 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:54:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, 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 PiktzQP3Mba1 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401C71A00F4 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBC43702; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:54:44 +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; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:53:40 +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; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:54:43 +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, 14 Feb 2014 13:54:38 +0800 From: "Huangyihong (Rachel)" To: "ppsp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-huang-ppsp-p2p-webrtc-survey-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHPKUfxNtAkhsBlFUqjEqV1olRJdJq0PYOg Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:54:38 +0000 Message-ID: <51E6A56BD6A85142B9D172C87FC3ABBB4591F6EB@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: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/jHb9mqJaXa-9NtD0-PLqofHnjmI Subject: [ppsp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-huang-ppsp-p2p-webrtc-survey-00.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: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 05:54:54 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KDQpXZSBqdXN0IHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBhIG5ldyBkcmFmdCBkaXNjdXNzaW5nIHRoZSBj dXJyZW50IGVtZXJnaW5nIFdlYlJUQyBiYXNlZCBQMlAgc3RyZWFtaW5nIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucy4g WW91ciBjb21tZW50cyBhcmUgd2VsY29tZS4gVGhhbmtzLg0KDQpCZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMsDQpSYWNo ZWwNCg0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTogaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRz QGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86aW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnXSANClNlbnQ6IEZyaWRh eSwgRmVicnVhcnkgMTQsIDIwMTQgMTo0NSBQTQ0KVG86IFl1bmZlaSBaaGFuZzsgWXVuZmVpIFpo YW5nOyBIdWFuZ3lpaG9uZyAoUmFjaGVsKTsgSHVhbmd5aWhvbmcgKFJhY2hlbCkNClN1YmplY3Q6 IE5ldyBWZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3IgZHJhZnQtaHVhbmctcHBzcC1wMnAtd2VicnRj LXN1cnZleS0wMC50eHQNCg0KDQpBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIEktRCwgZHJhZnQtaHVhbmctcHBz cC1wMnAtd2VicnRjLXN1cnZleS0wMC50eHQNCmhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0 ZWQgYnkgUmFjaGVsIEh1YW5nIGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlDQpJRVRGIHJlcG9zaXRvcnkuDQoN Ck5hbWU6CQlkcmFmdC1odWFuZy1wcHNwLXAycC13ZWJydGMtc3VydmV5DQpSZXZpc2lvbjoJMDAN ClRpdGxlOgkJU3VydmV5IG9mIFdlYlJUQyBiYXNlZCBQMlAgU3RyZWFtaW5nDQpEb2N1bWVudCBk YXRlOgkyMDE0LTAyLTE0DQpHcm91cDoJCUluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0KUGFnZXM6CQkx MQ0KVVJMOiAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2Ry YWZ0LWh1YW5nLXBwc3AtcDJwLXdlYnJ0Yy1zdXJ2ZXktMDAudHh0DQpTdGF0dXM6ICAgICAgICAg aHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaHVhbmctcHBzcC1wMnAtd2Vi cnRjLXN1cnZleS8NCkh0bWxpemVkOiAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9k cmFmdC1odWFuZy1wcHNwLXAycC13ZWJydGMtc3VydmV5LTAwDQoNCg0KQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQogICBU aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHByZXNlbnRzIGEgc3VydmV5IG9mIGN1cnJlbnQgZW1lcmdpbmcgV2ViUlRD IGJhc2VkIFAyUA0KICAgc3RyZWFtaW5nIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBhdmFpbGFibGUgb24gdGhlIG5v d2FkYXlzIEludGVybmV0Lg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQoNCg0KUGxlYXNl IG5vdGUgdGhhdCBpdCBtYXkgdGFrZSBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20gdGhlIHRpbWUg b2Ygc3VibWlzc2lvbg0KdW50aWwgdGhlIGh0bWxpemVkIHZlcnNpb24gYW5kIGRpZmYgYXJlIGF2 YWlsYWJsZSBhdCB0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy4NCg0KVGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg0K From nobody Sat Feb 15 17:24:34 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 66F651A00BB; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:04:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 yqL6SQE5eVdg; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:04:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from omx.cbeyond.com (omx.cbeyond.com [50.20.30.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F02051A0024; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:04:35 -0800 (PST) X-SBRS: -1.8 X-HAT: Sender Group ONNET_RELAY, Policy $ACCEPTED applied. X-Hostname: omx08bay.sys.cbeyond.net X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIFAPSR/lJFD9PBUmdsb2JhbABZgwaDP74XFgMBJUuCXgEFQCkUFhgDAgECATEbDAgBAYgBBch0kzgEiUiVU45/Hg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,847,1384318800"; d="scan'208";a="59045989" Received: from unknown (HELO alans-mbp.telchemy.com) ([69.15.211.193]) by omx.cbeyond.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 14 Feb 2014 17:04:33 -0500 Message-ID: <52FE92F1.1020505@telchemy.com> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:04:33 -0500 From: Alan Clark User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ppsp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ppsp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol@tools.ietf.org, pm-dir@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/iqyTu4oGfC0HKjBcv9boHUptagU X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:24:33 -0800 Subject: [ppsp] PM DIR review of draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03 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, 14 Feb 2014 22:04:52 -0000 This is a PM Directorate review of draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03 and is focused on the definition of metrics and the need for the use of RFC6390 templates. This draft defines four metrics, onlineTime, uploadedBytes, downloadedBytes and availBandwidth. There is insufficient definition of these metrics and this draft SHOULD use RFC6390 templates to define these. General comments: (i) Online Time is defined as how long the peer has been in the P2P streaming system, expressed as an 8 bit value. It is not clear what the units are, or if it is intended that this is some form of enumerated value. (ii) There does not appear to be a definition of the time window to which the uploaded and downloaded bytes relate. Do these relate to a specific file, in which case the file size should also be shown, or to an aggregate count, in which case the time window should be defined. (iii) Uploaded/downloaded bytes could refer to layer 2/3 bytes or to content bytes. in the context of this draft it seems more likely that content bytes would be the parameter of interest however this should be specified. (iv) �Available Bandwidth� has a very specific meaning and an associated set of measurement methodologies. Available bandwidth typically applies to the difference between raw network bandwidth and the current traffic level. Within a peer to peer network it seems likely that the intent is to report either the raw network access bandwidth for a node or the measured (effective) uploaded bit rate. The definition of these metrics should be provided in RFC6390 form and should describe the units of measurement, the measurement interval, the measurement method and the intended application Regards Alan Clark From nobody Sat Feb 15 17:25:16 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 597941A001A; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:37:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, 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 2uR5zPl4wZ0S; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:37:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646091A0015; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:37:03 -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 BDP41201; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 01:37:00 +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; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 01:36:37 +0000 Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 01:36:59 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.56]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 09:36:52 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: Alan Clark , "ppsp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , "ppsp@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol@tools.ietf.org" , "pm-dir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [pm-dir] PM DIR review of draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03 Thread-Index: AQHPKdDPogDyYUinxk+szypAsC67qpq1hwCA Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 01:36:52 +0000 Message-ID: References: <52FE92F1.1020505@telchemy.com> In-Reply-To: <52FE92F1.1020505@telchemy.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.149] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/ArfUSqHKBXRVcFPjlRfdpjmG-jE X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:25:15 -0800 Subject: Re: [ppsp] [pm-dir] PM DIR review of draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03 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, 15 Feb 2014 01:37:06 -0000 I agree with Alan's comments. One comment to add: I think The metric name "Available Bandwidth" needs to be more specific, "A= vailable Bandwidth" is well defined in draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions as link metric. "Available Bandwidth" = defined in draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03 is only related to uploading bandwidth and can be difference between total = uploading bandwidth and used uploading bandwidth. Regards! -Qin -----Original Message----- From: pm-dir [mailto:pm-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan Clark Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 6:05 AM To: ppsp-chairs@tools.ietf.org; ppsp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker= -protocol@tools.ietf.org; pm-dir@ietf.org Subject: [pm-dir] PM DIR review of draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03 This is a PM Directorate review of=20 draft-ietf-ppsp-base-tracker-protocol-03 and is focused on the=20 definition of metrics and the need for the use of RFC6390 templates. This draft defines four metrics, onlineTime, uploadedBytes,=20 downloadedBytes and availBandwidth. There is insufficient definition of=20 these metrics and this draft SHOULD use RFC6390 templates to define these. General comments: (i) Online Time is defined as how long the peer has been in the P2P=20 streaming system, expressed as an 8 bit value. It is not clear what the=20 units are, or if it is intended that this is some form of enumerated value. (ii) There does not appear to be a definition of the time window to=20 which the uploaded and downloaded bytes relate. Do these relate to a=20 specific file, in which case the file size should also be shown, or to=20 an aggregate count, in which case the time window should be defined. (iii) Uploaded/downloaded bytes could refer to layer 2/3 bytes or to=20 content bytes. in the context of this draft it seems more likely that=20 content bytes would be the parameter of interest however this should be=20 specified. (iv) "Available Bandwidth" has a very specific meaning and an associated=20 set of measurement methodologies. Available bandwidth typically applies=20 to the difference between raw network bandwidth and the current traffic=20 level. Within a peer to peer network it seems likely that the intent is=20 to report either the raw network access bandwidth for a node or the=20 measured (effective) uploaded bit rate. The definition of these metrics should be provided in RFC6390 form and=20 should describe the units of measurement, the measurement interval, the=20 measurement method and the intended application Regards Alan Clark _______________________________________________ pm-dir mailing list pm-dir@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-dir From nobody Sat Feb 15 17:41:03 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 5AE981A020F for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:41:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 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, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, 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 0gbrjAmH5c54 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:40:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oa0-x22d.google.com (mail-oa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8821A000A for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:40:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id i11so16374708oag.32 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:40:57 -0800 (PST) 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=hj/VQdilL+lGi5czo41tZE/RpIeYxyK5bGs9VELjpYI=; b=Nxvbf2joxyumhAdF5CQe0CVp/e1olsgh2MfNpOQFcpwpNB6wgXe5JWBU5+Sau0s+7O jG6jg65chW4LX9bWGFFTkO7/Zv4umvqecbVBaMiI9B+7LQzRzJER5iwBtBlGTFY0DL8X wKMfA79GSlfS5ZXUbkm0ASXoVO/e4EJ+GHsqKgRZV2d1xS/1LJ/0LTz2BqjQTD50BY5l I9Bgxc7jkVc1zZKB48gHZv3yuoZp/VwLqkJwWxBNR8CTVqpwvCgNkDl4IFFN7wcHUNmj hd2J2aeeCFtaj5UnkKQta0Ys2iAELCc9am4m9deRL/L3iVZrrRUgy9qY8WmyPsIDyV0M +YxQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.53.72 with SMTP id z8mr14056733obo.36.1392514857400; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:40:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.169.102 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 17:40:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:40:57 +0800 Message-ID: From: yunfei zhang To: "ppsp@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0447f0ee6b7de504f27c2117 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/MvqG8u6dFZ8JqInrr9Jr3TLMhZk Subject: [ppsp] PPSP Draft Agenda #IETF 89 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, 16 Feb 2014 01:41:01 -0000 --f46d0447f0ee6b7de504f27c2117 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi all, We have posted ppsp draft agenda according to the requests( http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/agenda/agenda-89-ppsp.) Since the peer protocol and survey draft have been in next stage outside the PPSP WG in IETF, the main task of the WG focuses on the tracker protocol. Please review the tracker draft, as well as other drafts and comment on the mailing list as well as in the meeting. P.S.: Is there any request for the implementations on the peer and tracker protocols? If there were, we would like to set a time slot for the show. Thanks and see you in London. BR Yunfei&Ning --f46d0447f0ee6b7de504f27c2117 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

=A0 =A0 We have posted ppsp draft agenda accor= ding to the requests(=A0http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/agenda/agenda-89-ppsp<= /a>.)

=A0 =A0 =A0Since the peer protocol and survey draft have been in next = stage outside the PPSP WG in IETF, the main task of the WG focuses on the t= racker protocol. Please review the tracker draft, as well as other drafts a= nd comment on the mailing list as well as in the meeting.

=A0 =A0 =A0P.S.: Is there any request for the implementations on the p= eer and tracker protocols? If there were, we would like to set a time slot = for the show.

=A0 =A0 Thanks and see you in London.

Yunfei&Ning

--f46d0447f0ee6b7de504f27c2117-- From nobody Mon Feb 17 08:10:28 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 4EBCB1A024F for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:10:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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 eH8BuJMRnN89 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:10:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ea0-x232.google.com (mail-ea0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F5C1A0228 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:10:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ea0-f178.google.com with SMTP id a15so7230297eae.23 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:10:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jsonified.com; s=google; h=sender:date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=9KpnM4jBc/fraRXLaIA0cXxTRHb2xMDacj0IeKnC/Nc=; b=F0vfewcw3VRMyiwoKXVJTM9TYAExtkDt+mEaJ1n3YD1xySZUt0M5xrygIFl3rt0W3e cM42ndoStfOw7C5M2t7i+yDpCj5Ks63vsu/7BtbLgbcmG0wFbOaKZaGTXvNPGSXBt8DO Ww8n2uRKNFJJ2+6NSJluqF/dSQo0vwdYwo8cU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:message-id:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=9KpnM4jBc/fraRXLaIA0cXxTRHb2xMDacj0IeKnC/Nc=; b=NFxVUQpyBstoi/RRjnPTE6LDtd+ANTsJ2yH5480tQ43exbt/INVtj1kxLNgMqpLwtv p7RtMDKPivKI244fGBdofMuqHCvV/NyTeBtRfj/aQa72+sicFFuOD/MmbAiAxosj0AxB nMoS6pZsoaG40pY1xPtSAABLflzlQl1KIvDX+edAXl6jAxVfAQxdLBiKJnq+HM1GXDhh N3wgcgFlxXTGnC+2exY4/zLNwRNly2hlR1Z3n3zGKXVyTVAsWOoJFcl6fL6cHG7bFcwR 66j32SGmh/AE2COi1L5NQezxKV5uzEgIHZkBkNxdXmfQ1bch0EjgGLe7xh9UDtEoCJli Bu+A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnLY0NCIH8f60NlZ9lzz1tNb72a+KgkXzFGjrYCFfHittRiW+zAAgoUBQ8s5TkpX9o+FN0S X-Received: by 10.15.99.201 with SMTP id bl49mr3396634eeb.53.1392653420649; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:10:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from akai.jsonified.com (chello084112019176.2.11.vie.surfer.at. [84.112.19.176]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v6sm58871987eef.2.2014.02.17.08.10.19 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:10:20 -0800 (PST) Sender: Dave Cottlehuber Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:10:17 +0100 From: Dave Cottlehuber To: "=?utf-8?Q?ppsp=40ietf.org?=" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Airmail (230) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/JYYjd_gYF_JL-VTiXyB5ip3ttW8 Subject: [ppsp] rewording of handshake 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, 17 Feb 2014 16:10:27 -0000 Hey folks, =20 Some points relating to the handshake follow. Vanshdeep Singh identified a misunderstanding of mine in the protocol, in= the closing handshake sent by a peer when it informs other peers it is l= eaving the swarm. =20 1. At the end of section http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-= protocol-08=23section-8.17 it=E2=80=99s clearly shown that the final hand= shake comprises 0x00000000 channel id for *both* source & destination cha= nnels. =20 However the handshake definition in=C2=A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft= -ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-08=23section-8.4 says: =22A channel is established with a handshake. =C2=A0To start a handshake,= the =C2=A0 =C2=A0initiating peer needs to know =E2=80=A6 =22A peer SHOULD explicitly close a channel by sending a HANDSHAKE =20 =C2=A0 =C2=A0message that MUST contain an all 0-zeros channel ID and a li= st of =20 =C2=A0 =C2=A0protocol options.=E2=80=9D =20 The status quo can be more clearly worded as:=C2=A0 =22A peer SHOULD explicitly close a channel by sending a HANDSHAKE=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0message that MUST contain all 0-zeros channel ID for both so= urce =C2=A0 =C2=A0and destination channels, and a list of protocol options.=E2= =80=9D=C2=A0 =46rom a technical standpoint, is there a possibility of conflict when sw= arms are sharing the same unique ip/port, i.e. a peer is using multiplexe= d channels to handle several swarms, that a closing handshake cannot be s= ent to a single specific swarm=3F It makes more sense to me to send a clo= sing channel message to the same destination channel already assigned for= this peer, instead of the all zeros channel, and possibly requiring the = swarm ID as a mandatory option within that too. My implementation current= ly assumes to be able to use a given channel ID to uniquely identify whic= h peer/swarm is being referred to, when cleaning up after a parting peer,= and also, means that I don=E2=80=99t need to track the state (initiator = or sender) of a peer. 2. When handshakes are introduced, it implies they=E2=80=99re only used f= or initiation. =23section-8.4: =22A channel is established with a handshake. =C2=A0To start a handshake,= the =C2=A0 =C2=A0initiating peer needs to know=E2=80=9D And in =23section-3.1, the opening statement when handshakes are introduc= ed should also mention the closing component as well -- I=E2=80=99m happy= to send a diff against the XML if that=E2=80=99s the more appropriate wa= y to handle changes, it would be even nicer if there=E2=80=99s a markdown= version instead of the XML =5B1=5D. =46inally, a colleague of mine is in Beijing this week, if there are any = PPSP folk there who would like to get in touch please reply to me off lis= t. Thanks=21 =20 -- =20 Dave Cottlehuber =20 Sent from my PDP11 =20 =5B1=5D:=C2=A0https://github.com/miekg/pandoc2rfc/ From nobody Mon Feb 17 11:16:24 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 A8D5E1A0275 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:16:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.845 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, 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 vj1_4Q5B3ClR for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:16:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailin.vu.nl (mailin.vu.nl [130.37.164.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A411A01B0 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:16:19 -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 14.3.174.1; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 20:16:14 +0100 Received: from [10.0.0.104] (130.37.253.20) by mails.vu.nl (130.37.236.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 20:16:15 +0100 Message-ID: <53026000.9080701@cs.vu.nl> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 20:16:16 +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: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [130.37.253.20] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ppsp/rj5NIo_d7C5Yc15moRsBZu9LW3I Subject: Re: [ppsp] rewording of handshake 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, 17 Feb 2014 19:16:22 -0000 Hi Dave et al please see inline. On 17/02/2014 17:10, Dave Cottlehuber wrote: > > 1. At the end of section > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol-08#section-8.17 > it’s clearly shown that the final handshake comprises 0x00000000 > channel id for *both* source & destination channels. > Nope. Destination channel ID is 0x00000008 in the last ASCII art (bit 28 set.) Hence, the receiver can identify which channel is being closed, and by whom in a secure fashion, as you argue. > 2. When handshakes are introduced, it implies they’re only used for > initiation. > You can raise this in the IETF last call, or we can add a phrase about closing when the IESG feedback comes back. CU, Arno