[Anima-signaling] Initiator field [was Two definite proposals for GRASP protocol change]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 11/01/2016 07:52, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Carsten,
> On 11/01/2016 02:38, Carsten Bormann wrote:
...
>> More odd to me is that the session-id only makes sense in conjunction
>> with the initiator, but the latter is not always given.  I can't quite
>> make rhyme and reason out of when it's there and when not.  Maybe that
>> should be explained in the text (beyond what's in 3.6), including how
>> the initiator is implied when not present in the message (source IP
>> address of UDP packet?).
> 
> The issue only arises at all because of the need to relay discovery
> and flood packets from one interface to another. In all other cases
> the source address of the packet is fine for disambiguating sessions.
> And in my implementation, the issue doesn't even arise for relayed
> discovery messages, because it proved easier to launch a new discovery
> session than to propagate the old one.
> 
> You know, I'm going to look at my code again. If I can do the same trick
> for flood messages when they are relayed, we just wouldn't need the
> stupid initiator field at all.

I had to add three lines of code to the relay function to do this.
So I now propose to remove the 'initiator' field from the messages where
I added it (and add the necessary clarifications about using the source
IP address). That will be a straightforward change to the -02D draft
that I sent yesterday, so co-authors, please let me know what you think
ASAP.

Thanks Carsten, this helped a lot.

    Brian