At Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:40:39 -0400,
Bruce Lowekamp wrote:
>
> To some extent, these questions are orthogonal to the questions about a
> potential relationship between HIP and P2PSIP.
>
> Using HIP in a decentralized manner requires a distributed rendezvous
> service (and distributed name service). An overlay such as have been
> proposed by the various peer protocol proposals is ideal for running
> such services.
>
> P2PSIP requires a distributed registrar service. This service also
> requires a peer protocol (and some layers on top) and is not supplied by
> HIP.
>
> Now there are still some architectural questions of whether the peer
> protocol connections should be formed using HIP or not and also
> questions about how to provide the best interface for applications using
> the services.
It seems to me that we're repeating ourselves. From the minutes
of PHL:
The chairs called for consensus on the question "Should we ask that
protocols developed allow HIP to be a customer of the P2Psip service,
within the constraints of the charter?" There was no opposition.
The chairs called for consensus on the question "Should we structure
the P2PSIP service such that hip is a) a mandatory part of the
technical infrastructure b) an optional part of the technical
infrastrcuture c) potentially present only when it replaces IP, with
no other linkage. Rough consensus for b as the current answer, with
further discussion as the technical documents describing p2psip
protocols progress.
Do we really need to rehash the discussions that led to this consensus
call?
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
