Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery-11

[Jouni Mäenpää <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 12. kesäkuuta 2014 2:27
> To: Jouni Mäenpää; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery-11
> 
> Hi Jouni,
> 
> On 6/8/14, 2:14 AM, "Jouni Mäenpää" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >Thanks for the comments! They have been addressed in the new -12
> >revision of the draft.
> >
> >> Given that the base RELOAD spec already defines a discovery mechanism
> >>for  TURN, I was surprised to see TURN as the only service registered
> >>in the new  namespaces registry. What was the rationale for that
> >>decision?
> >
> >The service discovery mechanism in the base RELOAD spec is specific to
> >TURN. The reason why we started writing this draft was that there was
> >interest from the working group in having also a more generic service
> >discovery mechanism for RELOAD that could be used also for other use
> >cases than TURN server discovery. Use cases that were discussed at that
> >point included among others voice mail and gateway discovery. Should we
> >add these services to the namespaces registry? ReDiR can also be used
> >as alternative to the TURN server discovery mechanism specified in
> >RELOAD base.
> 
> I don’t have a strong opinion on whether the other services should be added. If
> people are interested in using them, then they should be added.
> Are people interested? If not, there should be an explanation in the document
> that TURN is the only current use case of interest and that ReDir is an
> alternative to the already-specified TURN discovery mechanism.

Thanks for the reply! In the new -13 revision of the draft, we added one additional service (voice-mail). Also a note that ReDiR can be used as an alternative to the TURN server discovery mechanism in RELOAD base was added.

Regards,
Jouni

> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> >
> >Regards,
> >Jouni
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >Sent: 30. toukokuuta 2014 23:50
> >To: [e-mail]
> >Cc: [e-mail]
> >Subject: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery-11
> >
> >I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. It’s
> >in good shape. I have one question before I issue the last call, though.
> >Given that the base RELOAD spec already defines a discovery mechanism
> >for TURN, I was surprised to see TURN as the only service registered in
> >the new namespaces registry. What was the rationale for that decision?
> >
> >Some nits to be resolved with any last call comments:
> >
> >Section 2:
> >s/"turn-relay”/“turn-server”/
> >
> >Section 4.2:
> >"It is RECOMMENDED that Lstart is set to 2.”
> >
> >It would be helpful to add some text here to motivate the decision to
> >use
> >2 as the recommendation.
> >
> >Section 4.5
> >s/note: within the entire tree/note: within the entire tree node/
> >
> >Section 5:
> >s/every kind which is storable/every Kind which is storable/
> >
> >Section 6:
> >s/REDIR kind/REDIR Kind/
> >
> >Section 8:
> >s/"REDIR” kind/"REDIR” Kind/
> >
> >Section 9:
> >Seems like this section deserves a mention of the fact that a new
> >access control policy had to be defined for Redir.
> >
> >Section 10.4:
> >s/IANA SHALL create/IANA is requested to create/
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Alissa
> >
> >
>