Hi, I have not finished the review, but I have several questions on this document.
1). I am not sure how the TRUN usage defined in this document will work well. Who will be responsible for calculating the turnDensity and how? How to update the TURN server information in the overlay when some TURN servers leave the overlay suddenly, to aovid getting the "old" information? 2). In section 4.1.1 "Storage Permissions" said "RELOAD addresses this issue by only allowing any given node to store data at a small number of locations in the overlay, with those locations being determined by the node's certificate." This rule will limit the applications that the protocol could support. E.g, for streaming or file-sharing applications, it is very practical to put the resource providers' address information under the same Resource ID which is the hash of the content name, despite the node ID or username information contained in the certificate of the resource provider. 3). How do you prevent "via list" being modified by the intermediate peers? This is very important because it is related to whether you can get a right returen path for your response. 4). In section 5.4.2.4.2., RouteQuery response should at least include a next hop peer infomation if you want to use this message for the iterative routing. 5). I'm not sure about the necessity of access control policies in section 6.3. I think it will make sense only when these access control policies are generic to all usages that will be built on top of RELOAD. Other than that, I would suggest to remove this section and define these policies in each usage document. Comment 2 is also related to this topic. Thanks! Haibin >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Brian Rosen >Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:55 AM >To: Cullen Jennings; P2PSIP WG >Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] New version of draft-ietf-p2psip-base > ><as chair> >If you think the draft is missing something big, or has some >other serious shortcoming that makes it inappropriate to hold >a WGLC, please speak up now. >We'll give everyone a few days to look over this version, and >then decide if we will start it. > >If you had signed up to review NOW would be the time to do it, >on this version. That was NOW, and not "soon", please. > >Brian > > >On 10/23/09 2:38 PM, "Cullen Jennings" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> We just submitted a new version of the base draft at >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-p2psip-base-05.txt >> >> (there is a new version of the sip-usage as well). >> >> The major changes are mostly a very long and excruciating editorial >> pass to try and improve the grammar. >> >> At this point, I don't know of any significant issues that >need to be >> resolved. I think the draft is ready for WGLC. >> >> I'm sure that during WGLC some major issues will come up, some >> important decisions will be made about what needs to be >mandatory and >> such, and we will find several small inconsistencies and >typos in the >> draft as well as things that need a clearer explanation. This will >> take some time and I expect multiple more revisions for this draft >> before it is published, however, I do think this is the >right time to >> start WGLC. Lets get the issues on the table and then we can start >> resolving them. >> >> Thanks, >> 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 > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
