Subject: [P2PSIP] Comments on draft-jiang-p2psip-peer-protocol-requirement-00

From: "Medhavi Bhatia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:36:16 -0400

It seems this draft is a little out of update and probably needs some
re-organization as well.

1. First and foremost the draft needs to split requirements in more
categories: requirements pertaining to operate the p2p network itself
(join/leave/updates and other operations required for p2p network to work)
should be separate from transport level. It seems that other drafts are
talking about transport and control connections separate from the p2p
protocol itself and the draft needs to lay down requirements for these
separately from the p2p protocol.

2. At the p2p protocol level, the requirements are very vague and say too
little. In my understanding, they don't help much at this point to
specifically serve as guidance when choosing SIP or a new protocol
(comparing the bryan and henning drafts here).

3. Security requirements for the p2p protocol don't exist. There is a
section on security, but I am not sure it is giving any requirements for the
p2p protocol or the control connection protocol or transport.

4. Diagnostics collection is quite important, more so since there is no
management. I think requirements should be there for this as well since
diagnostics should be built into the protocol as well to test if it is
working properly.

Medhavi.
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip