Subject: [P2PSIP] draft-matthews-p2psip-dsip-nat-traversal-00

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:45:43 -0800

Few trivial nits ...

I hate the definition of "super nodes" as one that is outside of a  
NAT. I don't think that lines up well with what most the P2P  
community outside IETF means by super nodes. (Thought I do agree  
super nodes are outside NATs, I don't think that the only difference).

In section 2.2, I don't think 100% is correct for an estimate of UDP  
hole punching success. (Thought I highly regard the work Saikat and  
Paul and think they have really good data on this stuff)

Cullen <with my individual hat on>

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:12:48 -0400

> super nodes are outside NATs, I don't think that the only difference).

You are right. The text implies that a "super peer" is any peer  
located outside a NAT, and this is incorrect. Typically a peer also  
needs sufficient bandwidth and other resources before it qualifies  
for promotion to "super peer". We will fix this.

>
> In section 2.2, I don't think 100% is correct for an estimate of  
> UDP hole punching success. (Thought I highly regard the work Saikat  
> and Paul and think they have really good data on this stuff)

I read this as a comment on the text of the reference we cite, and  
not the text in our document.
If you have a different reference you think we should cite, let us know.

- Philip