Now help me understand this > 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.
HIP has been defined with a rendezvous server (RVS) in the HIP Rendezvous Extension RFC 5204. Actually, one of the nicer properties is the flexibility, since any node can act as a rendezvous server; that's more than SIP can do. What am I missing? Henry On 6/27/08 10:14 AM, "Bruce Lowekamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
