I would support an explicit flag.
Also, since a single bootstrap node is likely to support multiple
options, it could make sense to have something like:
<bootstrap-node address="192.0.0.1">
<port proto="TLS">5678</port>
<port proto="DTLS">6789</port>
</bootstrap-node>
or
<bootstrap-node>
<address>192.0.0.1</address>
<port proto="TLS">5678</port>
<port proto="DTLS">6789</port>
</bootstrap-node>
The latter is a bit more verbose, but more consistent with the rest of
the schema preferring XML values over attributes.
Cheers,
Ari
David A. Bryan wrote:
Yep, I agree, that's kind of my thought as well, so for my part, I'd
rather see the flag and make it a bit more explict.
David (as individual) Sent from my mobile device
-----Original Message----- From: Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> Date:
Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:42:22 To: [email protected]<[email protected]>
Cc: Cullen Jennings, Ph.D.<[email protected]>;
[email protected]<[email protected]>; Jouni
Mäenpää<[email protected]>;
[email protected]<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] RELOAD overlay
configuration document
On Mar 7, 2010, at 11:30, "David A. Bryan" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Would we add text indicating that different ports somehow imply
different transport/security mechanism
If you mean use the port to indicate separate security mechanism
without an explicit indicator in the config file, I don't see what
that adds.
Ekr _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing
list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
