[P2PSIP] draft-maenpaa-p2psip-self-tuning-01

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Sun, 08 November 2009 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: p2psip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE1523A67A7 for <p2psip@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:11:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.421
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.178, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FofPRvvXBWCW for <p2psip@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:11:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA263A67A2 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:11:47 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEANub9UqrR7H+/2dsb2JhbADDDZcZhD4EgmA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,701,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="66877436"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2009 00:12:11 +0000
Received: from tky-vpn-client-231-209.cisco.com (tky-vpn-client-231-209.cisco.com [10.70.231.209]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA80BkEp025017 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:12:10 GMT
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:12:10 +0900
Message-Id: <268D74B9-DE7A-4F55-9874-5B276B1FEE22@cisco.com>
To: P2PSIP WG <p2psip@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Subject: [P2PSIP] draft-maenpaa-p2psip-self-tuning-01
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:11:48 -0000

	
I like this draft and would love to seem some experimental data from  
operational networks playing with it.

I'm not sure what anyone else things, but I think it would be worth  
considering moving just one small part of to the base draft - namely  
Section 5.6.1.

On the Pro side for doing this:  It's really easy to implement and it  
would provide some interesting options for future things such as this  
self tuning draft.

On the Con side for doing this: in many DHT, a large percentage of  
nodes leave without sending nay signaling that they are going to Leave  
so specifying what goes in a Leave message might be a little optimistic

Cullen <in my individual contributor role>