Henry Sinnreich wrote:
Please help me understand:
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.
Since P2P SIP would run over HIP, the customer is P2P SIP, not the other way
round as in the above. Just as SIP, RTP, etc. are customers of IP.
Was this a typo?
No, one of the requirements for running HIP is a rendezvous service. A
P2PSIP peer protocol is capable of providing the rendezvous service that
HIP requires to form connections.
That question is independent of whether the P2PSIP peer protocol is
using HIP as its transport protocol.
Bruce
Thanks, Henry
On 6/27/08 7:46 AM, "Eric Rescorla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
