On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Das, Saumitra <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > I did say that there was consensus on the it being part of the base protocol. > The base draft however explicitly prevents this.
There was no consensus to include it in the base draft. That's what the part in parenthesis "((not worrying about what draft)" meant. The specific conclusion what that a more detailed direct routing proposal would be presented, and a later discussion would take place regarding where it went. Chairs, please correct me if I'm wrong on this. > > Maybe we should reach consensus on the base draft on this issue. > > It may be useful also to not have text explicitly saying direct routing is > not supported as it currently is in the base draft and mention that the > forwarding option can be used to implement this functionality if needed. > If there is text anywhere in the base draft that says direct routing is not supported, please cite a location (this is a general request whenever anyone says "the draft says foo"). It's a big draft and it's possible to lose track of what different sections say. I reorganized and rewrote parts of section 5 since last IETF and certainly the intro to 5 and 5.2 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-base-02#section-5 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-base-02#section-5.2 say nothing that explicitly prevents direct response routing. Bruce > Thanks > Saumitra > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Lowekamp [mailto:[email protected]] > 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. > -------- > > 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 > > 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
