Michael, Thanks for the comment. There are some overlay algorithms where a single node/process might have more than one Node-ID, so section 5 should be written to allow that. You're entirely right that it's not consistent right now.
Bruce On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Michael Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > In the current -06 draft, the second bullet of 5.1.1 states, > > "If the entry is a Node-ID which belongs to this node..." > > A peer may be responsible for a number of Resource-IDs but one and only > one Node-ID, its own. > > The 3rd bullet talks about routing to clients, and 5.1.3 talks about > private IDs. Therefore, this 2nd bullet should only be about the top > Node-ID in the destination list equals peer's own Node-ID. I suggest > change the work "belongs" to "is equal", which matches the wording of > the 3rd bullet. > > o If the entry is a Node-ID which is equal to this node, then ... > > Also, the first sentence of section 5.1.2 seems to refer to the 3 > bullets in section 5.1.1. It that is true, then: > > "If neither of the other two cases applies, then ..." > > should be > > "If neither of the three cases applies, then ..." > > > --Michael > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
