RE: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

> I want to be clear that I don't think this means we rule out having a
> HIP transport, but I think that if we say that we are going to wait
> for HIP to provide the complete underlying P2P fabric (peer protocol
> and all) that we use, we have things backwards -- that is what we are
> chartered here to provide. I also think it will be a long wait, since
> that particular work isn't chartered for P2P standards at the moment.
> I think deployment is critical here and sooner, rather than later. We
> need to be picking a direction and going with it very soon, not
> waiting for another group to deliver.

David, I fully agree with you. HIP has not been widely deployed and NAT
traversal, mobility and multihome are still developing. All in all, HIP is
not mature enough to provide stable service for upper applications. 

On the other hand, the requirements from HIP-BONE as pointed out by Gonzalo
should be considered while designing peer protocol. Fortunately, it is not
hard to be met. Most of the existing proposals have taken modular approach. 

Regards!
JiangXingFeng

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
P2PSIP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip