Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Technical Comments on draft-bryan-p2psip-reload-03

From: jiangxingfeng 36340 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:17:46 -0500

At Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:31:20 -0500,
> jiangxingfeng 36340 wrote:
> > > 7. Destination lists are underspecified, add complexity, and 
> not 
> > > justified for inclusion.
> > > 
> > > For example, there is no text for discovering and dealing with 
> > > loops in 
> > > destination lists.  There is no discussion about the security 
> > > considerations of destination lists.   More justification is 
> > > needed for 
> > > inclusion in the protocol.
> > 
> > You know, the information in the via-list and destination list 
> is about peer-id which is often at least 128 bit long. If the 
> message traverse 5 hops, the messge payload will be at least 128 * 
> 5 = 640. From my point of view, it is a big size because it has 
> not include any other payload. So the message may be fragmentated 
> with high probability. 
> 
> This sounds a lot smaller when you measure it in bytes==80.
> 
Maybe you are right. But I still think it is a problem if the message traverse more hopes and we consider in response the via-list and destination-list will appear together. 

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip