On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Narayanan, Vidya <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Bruce Lowekamp >> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:59 PM >> To: Das, Saumitra >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] direct routing support >> >> There was no consensus to include direct response in the base draft. >> Here's the text of the hum from the notes you point to: >> >> -------- >> First hum: whether or not we include direct routing as an option in >> the protocol (not worrying about what draft): result was consensus >> for including it in the protocol. >> -------- >> > > Right, there was consensus to include it in the base protocol.
The text inside the parenthesis means there was no consensus where to put it, to me at least. > To me, it would make sense to add it to the base draft, since it doesn't > seem to make sense to say in the base draft that it is not permitted and yet > have the notion of allowing it in the base protocol. > >> Direct response routing can be implemented as a forwarding option as >> described in the base. >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-base-02#section-5.3.2.4 >> > > I'm assuming that you are talking about a yet-to-be-defined forwarding > option? Or, did I miss something that is already specified that can be used > for this purpose? > Sorry to be unclear. I meant to say that a direct response forwarding option could be defined, not that the base draft defines one. > I think defining a forwarding option for this does make sense and > corresponding to that option, we need to say what the forwarding behavior > should be. The node sending the request also needs to provide its direct > reachability parameters in the message. > > While we are on the topic of forwarding options, could anyone describe the > purpose of the ones that are already defined in section 5.3.2.4? I don’t > quite see an explanation and I am quite perplexed by them :) > I'm not sure what you're referring to. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-base-02#section-5.3.2.4 doesn't define any forwarding options, it defines a structure that forwarding options could use, but does not itself define a forwarding option (i.e. no values for "type" are given meaning). Bruce > Thanks, > Vidya > >> So while it's possible to do it in other ways, and to include those >> techniques in the base draft, it's not required. >> >> (obviously it's a question of group consensus on whether it should be >> added to the base draft) >> >> Bruce >> >> >> 2009/3/24 Das, Saumitra <[email protected]>: >> > At the previous IETF there was consensus to add direct response >> routing as >> > an option in the protocol. >> > >> > >> > >> > See: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/p2psip/minutes?item=minutes73.html >> > >> > >> > >> > This is not yet reflected in the base draft. >> > >> > >> > >> > My previous post to this effect with some changes is below >> > >> > >> > >> > "I would like to propose we add a flag bit in the forwarding/common >> header >> > that indicates that a direct routing response to a message be used by >> the >> > responding node. As a policy, implementations in certain scenarios >> would >> > enable the flag as necessary. If the flag is set, the requesting node >> also >> > needs to include its reachable address in the forwarding header. >> > >> > >> > >> > We can indicate that the responding node need not keep state to >> minimize >> > complications. The sending node can simply resend a request (e.g >> STORE) with >> > the flag turned off if does not receive a response to the initial >> STORE >> > request with the flag turned on. >> > >> > >> > >> > This allows direct routing support in scenarios where the deployer or >> the >> > implementation knows it is dealing with reachable IP addresses and >> can >> > configure the implementation to behave accordingly." >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > Saumitra >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > P2PSIP mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> P2PSIP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
