search

deanwillis / p2psip-base-master

Master copy of P2PSIP Base draft
0 stars 0 forks source link

IESG Comment 138 #120

Closed deanwillis closed 11 years ago

deanwillis commented 11 years ago

From: Stephen Farrell

Description: Section 5.1.2: Why is it a SHOULD for the case where the 1st entry is on the connection table? Didn't you define the routing table just to make this distinction? If the SHOULD is right, then what's the exception?

Notes: Noted elsewhere.

petithug commented 11 years ago

I guess that this is a SHOULD because using the routing table instead will also work. But why one would do that? (the case where the direct connection is dead does not require a SHOULD. if it is dead, then it is remove from the connection table, and then there is no problem)

petithug commented 11 years ago

In fact I think that the SHOULD is wrong. Let's say that a client connect to this peer, but using the second bullet rule of 3.2.1, which means that a message is always routed with a source route. The peer receives the message and applies the rules of 6.1.1, removing the top Node-ID. Next 6.1.2 applies, as the peer is not responsible for this client. If the peer decide that it does not have to use the connection in the connection table, then the message will be routed outside and will never reach its destination. Hence it need to be a MUST!

deanwillis commented 11 years ago

Fixed