Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

I'm assuming that the goal is that a P2PSIP-compliant application will  
be able to participate in any P2PSIP-compliant overlay, subject to  
having code for the DHT  the overlay is running. Thus, this means that  
non-HIP peers must be able to be full peers. Unless the arrival of a  
single non-HIP peer converts the whole overlay to non-HIP usage, this  
also implies that all nodes must be able to deal with non-HIP peers,  
even if they prefer to speak HIP. Among other things, they'll probably  
have to implement ICE and TLS.

Thus, it's something like (b) and (c).

Henning

On Jan 10, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Hi, Cullen and Henning,
>
> I guess today is a good day for me to be confused.
>
> I thought I understood "optional to implement, optional to run", and  
> I understood Cullen's reasons stated below, but I'm very confused  
> about why "this only works if you can have mixed HIP-non-HIP" ...
>
> ... and that's probably because I'm not quite sure what "mixed HIP- 
> non-HIP" means.
>
> Are you talking about
>
> a - mixed within P2PSIP technology, so that some overlays use HIP  
> and others do not?
>
> b - mixed within the same endpoint, that can join a HIP overlay and  
> a non-HIP overlay?
>
> c - mixed within the same overlay, so some peers use HIP and others  
> do not?
>
> I'll stop talking now ...

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