[P2PSIP] comments on draft-maenpaa-p2psip-self-tuning

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I read the draft and think the approach is good.

 

The first comment I have is related to the periodic and reactive
stabilization.  The reload base draft is section 10.2 discuss the topic and
mention that the current approach in the reload base draft is for reactive
and that more input is needed. Yet section 10.7.2 describes periodic
stabilization. I think that we need to decide on the approach for the base
reload and if it is periodic we need to see if the text from the self tuning
draft should fold to the base draft.

 

Other comments

 

1.       In section 4.1 the update message includes the send-id. I am not
sure why it is needed since the sender is attached to the receiving peer and
I assume the receiver of the updates knows this information. This parameter
is not part of the update message in the reload base draft.

2.       In section 4.1 the update answer has an option to send the
predecessor or successor lists. What is the benefit for it since the
receiver is also part of the periodic stabilization and will need to send it
anyhow, so this may be a duplicate of messages. I can see the use case for
the message in the reactive stabilization case.

3.       I am not sure how a peer knows which topology is used in the
overlay, is this a different overlay algorithm type that need to be
registered in the IANA section.

4.       This draft defines  different parameters for update and update
answer but uses the same message code name and I assume the same code value.
Is that the approach and the peer knows the parameters based on the overlay
algorithm type or should we have another code name and code value.

 

Regards

Roni Even