Subject: Re: [pcp] request for a "PEER opcode as extension" tracker ticket

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:39:09 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   I believe it falls out of the requirement to support existing APIs so that
   apps don't have to change:
   
    This eases the deployment of PCP in situations where
    applications have already changed to support the APIs necessary for
    communicating with UPnP-IGD or NAT-PMP. Those applications only work
    today when the home gateway gets a public address, but may no longer
    work in situations where the gateway is behind another NAT. Home
    gateways could use PCP to translate and relay those UPnP and NAP-PMP
    messages to the PCP server, thus allowing such applications to continue
    working as they do today.
   
=> this is explicitely about UPnP-IGD or NAT-PMP APIs so as the common
feeling is UPnP-IGD nor NAT-PMP support a similar to PEER function
I can't understand the relationship.

   > So I'd like to open a new tracker ticket about the idea to move the PEER
   > section 9 from the base spec document to an extension one.

=> please note I maintain this.
   
   In a parallel thread you asked the more general question:
   >> BTW I can ask the same question about the PEER stuff:
   >> the fact it is in the base document does mean it is mandatory to support?
   >> If this is the case be prepared to receive objections...
   
   Hence I am opening the ticket with all of the above info, but will
   title it as about whether PEER support is mandatory.
   
=> this is not what I asked for but it is an interesting question
so I agree a ticket should be created for it.

Regards

[email-masked]