Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Should remove joining_peer_id and leaving_peer_id

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:34:35 -0700

These can be routed via a third party. For example you might want to use the third party for anonymization (the case I am interested in) or send them a 3rd party for NAT/FW traversal reasons. 

On Dec 5, 2009, at 11:47 AM, jc wrote:

> Because you MUST be directly connected to send these messages the field is of no use. These shouldn't routed via third party.
> 
> Julian
> 
> On Dec 5, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Michael Chen wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> What is the purpose of the NodeId in JoinReq and LeaveReq? 
>> 
>>        struct {
>>           NodeId                joining_peer_id;
>>           opaque                overlay_specific_data<0..2^16-1>;
>>        } JoinReq;
>> 
>>        public struct {
>>           NodeId                leaving_peer_id;
>>           opaque                overlay_specific_data<0..2^16-1>;
>>        } LeaveReq;
>> 
>> The NodeId of the originating peer can be obtained from the signature.
>> Unless the draft allows a peer to request a Join or Leave on behave of
>> another peer, these two fields should be removed.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> --Michael
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2PSIP mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
> 
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html