Thanks for the comments. I'm working on a new version. Many of these are great suggestions and require no comment, but a few comments on a few are inline:
4. Section 5: Peer-ID > > All the other drafts use the "Node-ID" terminology, so why not invert the > definition, I.e. define Node-ID and says that this is sometimes called a > "Peer-ID"? See also the definition of "Peer" and Section 6.4 that both use > "Peer-ID". > Actually,back in the day there was a long discussion on this, and Node-ID was decided (by the group) as the preferred term. Despite that, as things evolved the editors of base used Peer-ID, and it stuck. (particularly unfortunate since RELOAD gives Peer-IDs to clients). In any case, the name has stuck, and I'll definitely make the change. > 6. Section 5: Responsible Peer > > I did not read all the literature on the subject, but I never saw the term > "Root > Peer" used as synonym for "Responsible Peer." > It is used quite a bit in the early academic literature (again going back to when this was first written), but I agree responsible peer is used more now (and is better for an arrangement-agnostic design like RELOAD anyway) 9. Security Section > > Security section missing. > This is an interesting point. Since it has turned out that security is discussed in more detailed context in the specific drafts, do we want something like this in here, and if so, what do we want in this draft? My thought would be either a) we don't have a security section in here or b) we have a generic section on P2P security threats, but although I'm making the other changes, I'm not sure I'll have time to write something like that. Thoughts on that? David (as individual)
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
