I thought this revision of the document was a significant improvement and thank the authors for spending so much time reorganizing and rewriting pieces of it.
I liked the general discussion of issues. When it got into the RELOAD-specific part I was less certain how to apply it. It might be helpful if the draft uses RELOAD to refer to the specific protocol and P2PSIP or even another term to discuss general p2p communications system issues to avoid confusion. This draft appears to have the wrong IPR declaration at the beginning. Since it incorporates material that was contributed prior to 11/2008, it can't use this declaration. I still find the term "overlay base" confusing. Again, depending on whether parts of the discussion are intended to be general about p2p telecom or specific to RELOAD and work in the p2psip working group, some of the discussion and terms need to be updated. For example, there is no separate protocol for peer vs client communication (even though there is discussion of whether additional methods are needed for client operation, I don't believe anyone is arguing for separate protocols at this point). Bruce _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
