Hi Das, Thank you for your response.
The method Inspect is defined for the purpose of (1) and (2). And because of limited time, we could take more time to look at the parameters you mentioned in (3) such as bw and cpu later as a workgroup item. Best Regards, Haibin Email: [email protected] Skype: alexsonghw >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >Das, Saumitra >Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:16 AM >To: Roni Even; 'Bruce Lowekamp'; 'David A. Bryan' >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] List consensus call to >adoptdraft-zheng-p2psip-diagnose-04 as a WG item > >I agree with Bruce that this needs work. I have the following comments > >1. Why does the introduction of the draft specifically target p2p service >providers crawling the overlay for diagnostic information. We should be trying >to develop a general mechanism to diagnose nodes and links between nodes. Whether >this is used by the service provider or between two nodes in the p2p overlay >is not important. An overlay node may use diagnosis to detect problems, make >choices etc. > >2. We need a way for the p2p overlay operator to cause diagnosis between nodes >in the overlay and not just retrieve information about the node itself. For >example, the operator may wish to figure out the latencies observed between >superpeers in the overlay to make a usage specific optimization > >3. Some of the items discussed on the list are not reflected in the document >specifically the discussions on node specific metrics like cpu and bw. We should >look at what has been useful for PlanetLab in this context since it is a long >running overlay. The node metrics are routinely used in planetlab by overlay >deployers. > >4. The diagnostic server should be out of scope for this draft. Rather we should >think about a mechanism for the overlay operator/(maybe the enrollment server >or some other entity) to trigger a specific diagnosis between two overlay nodes. >What is done with the diagnostic information obtained need not be standardized >atleast in this draft. > >Thanks >Saumitra > >www.saumitra.info > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >Roni Even >Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:17 PM >To: 'Bruce Lowekamp'; 'David A. Bryan' >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] List consensus call to adopt >draft-zheng-p2psip-diagnose-04 as a WG item > >Hi Bruce, > >I agree with you about that we need to address any duplication between the >base draft and this draft. The consensus in the last meeting was to define >separate methods in the diagnostics draft and leave the ones in the base >draft simple. > >As for the parameters in diagnostics information there was some discussion >in the past on the list and I also think we need to look at them. > >Regards >Roni Even > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >Bruce Lowekamp >Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 11:03 PM >To: David A. Bryan >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] List consensus call to adopt >draft-zheng-p2psip-diagnose-04 as a WG item > >I've been in favor of adoption, and I am not going to change my opinion now. > >However, I have some serious concerns about this draft, and the >revisions have not addressed them. When the revision was posted, it >should have been announced on the list and the changes made to it >brought to the attention of the wg members for discussion. > >I have technical concerns with this draft that have been mentioned >before (OWD can't be measured the way this draft proposes, and I don't >believe the multiple-responses-for-an-echo-request technique should be >supported). > >There are also some issues with duplication of functionality between >base methods and the new methods defined. I think this is something >we can address later as a working group. > >I don't understand why the "diagnostic server" material was added to >this revision. I think it should be removed. If something like this >is desired, it should be entirely separate. > >Bruce > > > > >On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 5:13 PM, David A. Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: >> Looking for objections, since we had consensus in the room in Minneapolis. >> >> Thanks for clarifying! >> >> David (as chair) >> >> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Dan York <[email protected]> wrote: >>> David, >>> >>> Are you expecting us to send messages to the list agreeing with this? Or >>> are you taking the lack of *dissenting* messages as a sign of consensus? >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> P.S. I agree with this action, by the way, and did hum to adopt in the >room >>> in Minneapolis. >>> >>> On Dec 26, 2008, at 10:08 AM, David A. Bryan wrote: >>> >>>> In Minneapolis, there was a hum taken which indicated rough consensus >>>> to move towards adopting the P2PSIP diagnostics draft as a working >>>> group item. Since there were also a number of corrections/changes >>>> requested, the chairs asked the authors to iterate the draft and post >>>> it, and then we would verify the consensus on list. >>>> >>>> The authors posted the revisions to the draft a few weeks ago: >>>> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zheng-p2psip-diagnose-04.txt >>>> >>>> I'd like to ask for list consensus to verify the consensus from the >>>> meeting in favor of adopting this work as a WG item. >>>> >>>> David (as chair) >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> P2PSIP mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >>> >>> -- >>> Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology >>> Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation [email protected] >>> Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com >>> Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com >>> >>> Build voice applications based on open standards. >>> Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> P2PSIP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >> >_______________________________________________ >P2PSIP mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > >_______________________________________________ >P2PSIP mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >_______________________________________________ >P2PSIP mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
