On 11 Jan 2007, at 11:42, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Ummm...
Also I cant see IETF being interested in NAT traversal - I
seem to remember this was tried before. But standardising BT as a
file
distribution protocol still makes sense (like NFS is a standard).
And it
at least sets up a precedent and a potential working group for
doing P2P
through a standards process.
Justin
No. :-)
The IETF is absolutely fascinated by NAT traversal. The MMUSIC
working group has developed several NAT traversal mechanisms (home
page at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mmusic-charter.html,
start poking around near the ICE drafts), and the BEHAVE working
group is trying to describe what NATs can do without TOTALLY
borking the world (home page at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/
behave-charter.html).
The proposed charter for a P2PSIP working group is on the current
IESG charter to approve sending that charter out for comments
(http://www.ietf.org/IESG/agenda.html) - I'm a little confused
about which side of the International Date Line I'm sitting on, but
this should be discussed "today", plus or minus 24 hours. P2PSIP
expects to use MMUSIC/BEHAVE products, but they care enough about
NAT traversal that it's going to affect their choice of peer/client
protocols.
I never said that the IETF work was either highly responsive or
already complete, but for some value of "care", we care about P2P
and NAT traversal.
I hope this is helpful.
It is. Have been out of the loop for a bit, and obviously things have
been going on. Better catch up.
j
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
