Hi, Radhika, Thanks for your clarification. I guess that from what you described below is that there exist the concept of primary, secondary, et al. I will be happy if it is true.
Regarding to uniform principles, you listed peer side and client side, you could enforce that uniform principle in peer side will dominate, but I can't see why we stop Client having his own vision of the world. thanks again. -Hui 2008/1/29, Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Hu: > > Here is the approach how to resolve it creating some uniform principles for > the peer-to-peer protocol: > > 1. From P2P protocol point of view, there should be a uniform guideline what > should be the primary, secnodary, and other criteria including the choosing > the clients who cannot override the decision of the Peer entities. > > 2. What clients would do for implementing their criteria (e.g. policy, > primary peer, or others) may depend on many things for which peer to peer > protocol characteristics must not change. > > To answer your question, item 1 will determine this if we think this is what > we want. However, it has to come from the general principles of the P2P > protocol, but not from the clinet-peer protocol. > > Best regards, > Radhika > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hui Deng > Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:25 > Subject: Re: RE: [P2PSIP] Open issues with client has multiple associated > peers > To: "Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC" > Cc: Song Yongchao , P2PSIP Mailing List > > > sorry for mine cutting in, > > > > 2008/1/29, Roy, Radhika R Dr CTR USA USAMC > > :> Please see my inputs inline [RRR] > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Song Yongchao > > > Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:06 > > > Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] Open issues with client has multiple > > associated peers > > > To: 'Song Yongchao' , 'P2PSIP Mailing List' > > > > > > > I need to modify the second question to make it more clear. > > > > > > > > I think most proposals agree that one client can have multiple > > > > associatedpeers to keep the service continuity. The open > > issues are: > > > > > > > > (1) Should there be a primary associated peer? And when this peer > > > > fails, the > > > > client switches to another associated peer? I am not sure of > > about it. > > > > > > [RRR] I think the answer is none from the protocol point of > > view. However, if clients wants to make something as its primary, > > secondary, etc., it should be left for implementations. It is a > > different area how a client will these choices. > > [Hui] I have different image here, there could be client > > involvement for this, > > for example, peer could say himself being a primary, who else > > being a secondary > > through client protocl extension, make sense? > > > > -Hui > > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
