Subject: [P2PSIP] reload base draft changes from 73

From: "Bruce Lowekamp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:15:07 -0500

During the presentation on draft-ietf-p2psip-base-00, there was
consensus to make a number of changes to the draft.  Unless there are
significant objections raised on list, I will make these changes to
the draft.  A few other issues will be in separate threads.

Bruce

- remove TUNNEL

In Dublin we agreed to remove TUNNEL if no adequate use cases were
brought to list to justify its inclusion.  None have been brought to
list.

- Decouple overlay description from enrollment server

The draft currently says the overlay description is obtained from the
enrollment server.  Remove that statement so the overlay description
can come from anywhere and can point to the enrollment server.

- Reword finger table entry selection to allow other algorithms

Addresses concerns about allowing topology-aware implementations to be
built without changing the base protocol or overlay algorithm.

- Large messages

Error codes will be introduced to signal messages too big.  (more
changes may be agreed on later, but we appeared to have consensus that
at least those are necessary in the base.)
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:38:18 +0200

Hi Bruce,
I am not sure what is covered under 

" Addresses concerns about allowing topology-aware implementations to be
built without changing the base protocol or overlay algorithm." I assume it
has to do with the symmetric recursive response text.

Just a reminder that we discussed also adding a flag that will not allows
intermediary peers to keep state of the call.
Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Bruce Lowekamp
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 7:15 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [P2PSIP] reload base draft changes from 73

Bruce

- remove TUNNEL

- Large messages

---

From: "Bruce Lowekamp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:16:52 -0500

Hi Roni,

responses inline

> has to do with the symmetric recursive response text.

This is a change to 10.7.3, the stabilization for the chord-like
overlay algorithm.   In -00 the text describes only how to use random
selection for finger table entries and uses MUST to require this.  In
an earlier thread, Das asked if topology-awareness could be used to
select finger table entries, and I agreed to change the wording in
that section to make the random selection a SHOULD but state that an
implementation or additional spec MAY use a different algorithm to
replace the random selection if it meets certain conditions.  New
wording will be in -01.

> intermediary peers to keep state of the call.

I have that in my TODO list.  I intend to post a proposed way (or set
of possibilities) to address this in the next few weeks.

I also have the change to make 5.1.2 that defines responsible id,
other id, and private id a separate subsection rather than place it
within the definition of recursive symmetric routing.  I had meant to
include this change on my slide in Minneapolis, but forgot.  Will also
get that done in the next few weeks.

Bruce