On Dec 22, 2009, at 7:50 AM, Ari Keranen wrote: > > Is this (explicitly) stated somewhere in the draft? If so, also I have > missed it. If it isn't, perhaps it should be.
The RELOAD port is clearly documented in draft. Isn't this enough? > > And what about if a node wants to use a different port number for TLS > and DTLS? I think Jouni's proposal for explicit port numbers per > protocol and structured bootstrap-node element makes sense. Nowhere in the draft is dual-stack nor dual-transport ever mentioned. Having said that a Bootstrap Node would never listen on two ports with two different transport protocols, its one transport protocol or the other. My implementation decision doesn't roll over into the draft. Keep in mind that the draft doesn't outline this scenario whatsoever and it introduces several caveats. IMHO the topology-plugin element should provide transport and or ciphersuite information because RELOAD isn't smart enough to choose DTLS over TLS and so on. Only the topology plugin can supply this recommendation to the underlying base. Julian > > > Cheers, > Ari > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
