The question by Michael Chen has not been answered by the authors of P2P: >>Could the authors of P2PP highlight what parts of p2pp were adopted in
>> RELOAD-03? Eric Rescorla has provided the answer: >whether we lost important P2PP functionality in the merge. >I think the answer to that is "no". The P2PP has some very distinct features and I could not find them in Reload-03. P2PP is not listed in the References. If and how the features of P2PP have been merged, a list would be most helpful. Also a discussion if/when some P2P features could not be merged. This is important to a number of people who have implemented P2PP or may be planning or contemplating to do so. Thanks, Henry -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Rescorla Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:40 PM To: Michael Chen Cc: P2PSIP WG Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Merge of P2PP and RELOAD Michael writes: > It's great to see progress! > > Could the authors of P2PP highlight what parts of p2pp were adopted in > RELOAD-03? I'm not a P2PP author, but I hope you won't mind if I respond. As you know, architecturally P2PP and RELOAD were actually very similar, with quite similar feature sets. Even so, it's pretty hard to merge all the words piecewise so we ended up starting with the RELOAD text and trying to make sure that all the functionality in P2PP that wasn't in RELOAD (unstructured DHTs, hop-by-hop reliability, diagnostics, etc.) got merged in. So, I think the more important question here is whether we lost important P2PP functionality in the merge. I think the answer to that is "no". Best, -Ekr _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
