So I was sort of hoping to get reasons why the flag was needed (or not). On Mar 9, 2010, at 7:00 AM, Ari Keranen wrote:
> 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 > Cullen Jennings For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
