One more comment on hop-by-hop reliability model: ACK is only used when the underlying transport protocol is a unreliable one, such as DTLS. But if the TLS/TCP is used, the message could be considered reliable between two TCP entities, but we are not sure whether the receiving peer has really processed the message. In that case, does the sending peer retransmit the message? when?
Regards! JiangXingFeng > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
