Re: [P2PSIP] Section 3.5.2 and 10.5 Discrepancies

[Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>]

I thought about this and talked to a few people. No one could see any  
reason the bootstrap node had to be a peer (clearly it can be a peer)  
so I went and updated the terminology to refer to bootstrap node  
instead of peer. Folks on the list, think about this one - if someone  
has a good reason that the bootstrap has to be a peer, this will need  
to be changed back.


On Sep 10, 2009, at 4:54 AM, jc wrote:

> Hi,
>
> From subversion(04) draft:
>
> 3.5.2.  Joining, Leaving, and Maintenance Overview
>
> The first thing the peer needs to do is form a connection to some  
> "bootstrap node".
>
> 10.5.  Contacting a Bootstrap Peer
>
> When contacting a bootstrap peer, the joining peer sends a Ping  
> request to the bootstrap peer's known IP address with the  
> destination Node-ID set to the joining peer's Node-ID
>
> When the requester peer finally does receive a response from some  
> responding peer, it can note the Node-ID in the response and use  
> this Node-ID to start sending requests to join the Overlay Instance  
> as described in
>
> There are two problems here, the first is simply terminology.
>
> 3.5.2 uses "bootstrap node"
>
> 10.5 uses "bootstrap peer"


> The second, 10.5 does not mention forming a connection and looks as  
> if it was based on a UDP bootstrap mechanism or the multicast  
> bootstrap(10.4). Am I correct that 10.5 is attempting to refer to  
> 3.5.2 and that 10.5 should clear up the fact that your forming a  
> connection to a bootstrap peer and not simply sending a datagram to  
> bootstrap nodes and waiting for responses?
>
> REgaRDs,
> Julian
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> P2PSIP at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip