Subject: [P2PSIP] Message routing in draft-jiang-p2psip-peer-protocol-requirement-00

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:22:53 -0500

This was interesting to read but it did make me realize one of the  
big architecture questions in designing the peer protocol. Do the SIP  
messages that are not about the DHT or location but about setting up  
a session get routed by the peers. In this draft for example, does  
the INVITE from Alice to Bob get routed thought the peer network. I  
suspect that to make NAT traversal work, it will probably need to.

I understand the argument for a new method if an existing one doe  
snot fit the semantics correctly - but I'm not sure I was convinced  
from this that the existing semantics did not fit. I am also hesitant  
to invent a new XML RPC mechanism to layer into the SIP bodies - if  
one is going to make an XML RPC, why not just use an existing one.

Cullen <with my individual hat on>

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

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:48:44 -0500

On 7-Mar-07, at 11:22 , Cullen Jennings wrote:

> big architecture questions in designing the peer protocol. Do the  
> SIP messages that are not about the DHT or location but about  
> setting up a session get routed by the peers. In this draft for  
> example, does the INVITE from Alice to Bob get routed thought the  
> peer network. I suspect that to make NAT traversal work, it will  
> probably need to.

The -04 version of the Concepts draft proposes that the answer is "yes",
based on the working group's response to Open Issue #2:
       http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip/current/ 
msg01836.html

See the discussion of the "Transport Service" in the draft, where it is
explicitly mentioned that this service is for transporting arbitrary SIP
messages (and not Peer Protocol messages, which may or may not
be SIP-based).

- Philip

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 22:36:48 -0500

Good - that makes sense to me.

I'm sort of reading this stuff in the wrong order - I do all the 00  
drafts before I start in on the non 00 drafts just so I have enough  
time to get through them all.