On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Michael Chen wrote:
Cullen,
I posted several issues regarding the -03 draft late July but
received no reply. I don't see changes related to these issues in
the new -04 draft. I want to make sure they are not overlooked:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip/current/msg05019.html
1) Section 5.5.1.1, the definition IceCandidate.rel_addr_port does
not conform with section 15.1 of the current mmusic-ice-19 draft,
which has the following text:
"<rel-addr> and <rel-port>: convey transport addresses related to the
candidate, useful for diagnostics and other purposes. <rel-addr>
and <rel-port> MUST be present for server reflexive, peer
reflexive and relayed candidates."
Therefore, the definition of IceCandidate should be:
struct {
...
select (type){
case host:
; /* Nothing */
case srflx:
case prflx:
case relay:
IpAddressPort rel_addr_port;
}
...
} IceCandidate;
rel_addr_port
corresponds to the related address and port of ICE, which MUST
present for type "srflx", "prflx" and "relay".
This was my mistake and an issue of having several people working on
text. I thought the problem in 03 was we were missing rel_add_port, I
went to look the draft and decided that, oh, someone already dealt
with the email from Michael. I did not realize the problem was the
with where the "; /*nothing*/ was in the select statement. Sorry we
missed this email last time, it will be in the next version.
2) In Section 13.6, IANA message codes for AppAttachReq and
AppAttachReq are not added. I suggest fill these two values
(app_attach_req=5, app_attach_ans=6) in the holes left by the
abandoned tunnel_req and tunnel_ans.
Added along with the lite version JC pointed out was missing. I did
not use use the values 5 and 6 as I wanted to avoid a conflict with
anyone that was using tunnel.
3) In Section 6.4.1.2, if the store request has multiple kinds, the
current answer structure will send replica node IDs multiple times.
For efficiency, I suggest moving the replica node IDs to the outer
layer as:
struct {
KindId kind;
uint64 generation_counter;
} StoreKindResponse;
struct {
StoreKindResponse kind_responses<0..216-1>;
NodeId replicas<0..216-1>;
} StoreAns;
4) It seems that mmusic-ice-tcp-07 has been abandoned. The key
members of this draft should address the lack of ice-tcp standard in
the next draft, meeting or on the mailing list.
I don't know that ICE-TCP has been abandoned. It is still listed as a
key milestone for the MMUSIC WG. I think the authors, chairs, ads, etc
decided there was not to much criticality to working on it before the
base ICE stuff got done. That said, I agree we should get ice-tcp
moving again. Someone could go bug the mmusic WG and point out the
charter says it will go to the IESG in Oct 2009. Of course the P2PSIP
WGs milestones say this document will got the the IESG in September
2008.
That is it so far. Thanks
--Michael
Cullen Jennings wrote:
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
