At 7:37 AM -0700 7/13/09, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>This is a category error: we don't depend on the Update message to determine
>whether an attached node is a client or peer because client isn't
>an important concept in RELOAD. Rather, the rules cause peers to treat
>adjacencies
>correctly whether they are peers, clients, or peers who haven't
>completed the join
>process yet. There is no need for a peer to detect or remember whether an
>adjacency is a client or peer.
>
>-Ekr
Speaking personally, I think there is a fair chance that a peer might want
to treat an adjacent node differently if it is a client and if it is a peer
that intends
to but hasn't completed the join process yet. I understand the
"a stranger is a friend you haven't met" theory behind the current approach
which makes them equivalent. But that understanding is based largely on
the explanation given on the list. I think that some small promotion in
the concept of client from our current stance would be useful.
We already know that people will do this, and having explicit text on how
strikes me as a good idea.
As I said before I'd be okay with just text in the document that
expounded the current theory. That would help later readers better understand
why long-term adjacencies without complete join processes shouldn't be
treated as errors. My personal style preference would be for a more
explicit set of distinguishing characteristics, but I recognize that may be
largely a style thing.
regards,
Ted
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
