Hi, I agree with Bruce that it was not decided where the direct response functionality will be defined. Currently http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jiang-p2psip-relay-01.txt specifies the extension for direct response as well as relay response. I will present the document on Friday session since Jiang XingFeng could not attend the meeting. I have no preference where direct response or relay support is specified but the Jiang draft tries to address the fall back issues as well as the needed extensions to forwarding header for this solution to work.
Roni Even -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Narayanan, Vidya Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:09 PM To: Bruce Lowekamp; Das, Saumitra Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] direct routing support > If there is text anywhere in the base draft that says direct routing > is not supported, please cite a location (this is a general request > whenever anyone says "the draft says foo"). Please see this text towards the end of section B.3: " An extension to RELOAD that supports direct response routing but relies on symmetric responses as a fallback would be possible, but due to the complexities of determining when to use direct response and when to fallback to symmetric, and the reduced performance for responses to peers behind restrictive NATs, we have chosen not to include it as an option at this point." I believe the discussion in Minneapolis was not about making it an extension to RELOAD, rather, making it a part (and an option) of RELOAD. Vidya _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
