> On Mar 3, 2008, at 5:26 PM, jiangxingfeng 36340 wrote: > > > Hi, Bruce: > > > > I have more comments on Reload-3. > > > > 1. After reading P2PP-01 and RELOAD-3, the first impression is > that > > most of the mechanisms in the merged proposal are from the > > RELOAD-3. Only the diagonstic usage is from the P2PP. Although > the > > two proposals have the nearly same design objectives, the > proposed > > mechanism are still a little bit different. We are very > interested > > in why you made this decisions, such as, why all authors think > hop- > > by-hop reliability modes is not better than the via-list? > > > > reload-03 added hop-by-hop reliability from p2pp. Search for ACK > in > the text. I view hop-by-hop reliability and via-lists as orthogonal. >
After reading the new revision, my concern is how a peer know which kind of method will be used to route the message in a specific transaction? Does RELOAD-3 plan to support a hybrid way? On the other hand, as Henry suggested, we should make clear why we make the design decisions on every potential P2PSIP work items in current proposals. _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
