Thank you, few comments inline....
On Oct 10, 2009, at 2:20 AM, Xiao, Lin (NSN - CN/Beijing) wrote:
Hi Cullen,
I've had a quick review of these two drafts, and still not quite clear
with some Client related issues.
I know Client is not the first-class concept in RELOAD, but as it has
been involved in the RELOAD protocol, RELOAD should give full
support to
client anyhow, right?
In the terminology chapter of RELOAD Base draft, the connection
table is
defined as:
"The set of peers to which a node is directly connected. This
includes nodes with which Attach handshakes have been done but which
have not sent any Updates."
although, the second sentence implies that clients are also involved
in,
I still suggest to replace the "peers" in the first sentence with
"nodes" to make it more clear that both peers and clients can be
maintained in the table.
I agree. I changed this - thank you for the careful review to catch
things like this.
In my opinions, connection setup and maintenance between client and
its
connected peer (responsible peer or arbitrary peer) is a key issue for
client support in RELOAD. My question is: Does a peer in RELOAD
distinguish if the connection is to a peer or to a client? Because the
reaction of the peer could be different when the connection is lost.
Reload does distinguish at some level but what do you think a node
needs to do differently when a connection is lost if the connection
when to a peer or client. Clearly how data replication is handled and
some of the finger table stuff is handled differently but I think that
is covered in the draft. If you see something specific missing, let me
know.
As a client could set up a connection only with an arbitrary peer.
Does
this peer distinguish such connection from those it is responsible to?
I don't se the need to.
Should this peer inform the client's responsible peer about the
Destination List to the client? So that it can still be accessed by
other nodes. Or should the Destination List been stored with some
usage,
say SIP Usage?
Yes, that is the approach to store destination lists where they are
needed.
If so, the SIP usage must be extended to allow a
Destination list containing more than one Node IDs.
agree that it needs to allow storing multiple Node IDs but I think it
already does that.
In current SIP
usage draft, the SipRegistration structure only allow one address
being
stored in the Destination List, as:
" Destination destination_list<0..2^16-1>;"
The destination_list here is an array of Destinations so it allows
between 0 and 65K entries in the array. I agree the syntax for
specifying arrays might seem a bit weird but I think the structure is
what you are pointing out we need to have.
It should be replaced by: "Destination destination_list
[dest_list_length];"
to enable a longer list stored by arbitrary connected clients.
Anyway, IMHO, RELOAD should make sure to cover all situations a client
could meet or at least clearly distinguish issues of clients,
especially
for arbitrary connected ones, which are left to be solved by other
drafts. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Xiao, Lin
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf
Of ext Cullen Jennings
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 1:53 AM
To: P2PSIP WG
Subject: [P2PSIP] New versions of RELOAD and sip draft
I just submitted
draft-ietf-p2psip-base-04
and
draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-02
These contain technical changes but do not have a lot of editorial
changes. At some point we need to go and reorganize the documents with
editorial changes.
Cullen <in my individual contributor role>
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
