Hi Bruce, I am not sure what is covered under " Addresses concerns about allowing topology-aware implementations to be built without changing the base protocol or overlay algorithm." I assume it has to do with the symmetric recursive response text.
Just a reminder that we discussed also adding a flag that will not allows intermediary peers to keep state of the call. Roni Even -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Lowekamp Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 7:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [P2PSIP] reload base draft changes from 73 During the presentation on draft-ietf-p2psip-base-00, there was consensus to make a number of changes to the draft. Unless there are significant objections raised on list, I will make these changes to the draft. A few other issues will be in separate threads. Bruce - remove TUNNEL In Dublin we agreed to remove TUNNEL if no adequate use cases were brought to list to justify its inclusion. None have been brought to list. - Decouple overlay description from enrollment server The draft currently says the overlay description is obtained from the enrollment server. Remove that statement so the overlay description can come from anywhere and can point to the enrollment server. - Reword finger table entry selection to allow other algorithms Addresses concerns about allowing topology-aware implementations to be built without changing the base protocol or overlay algorithm. - Large messages Error codes will be introduced to signal messages too big. (more changes may be agreed on later, but we appeared to have consensus that at least those are necessary in the base.) _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
