At Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:31:20 -0500, > jiangxingfeng 36340 wrote: > > > 7. Destination lists are underspecified, add complexity, and > not > > > justified for inclusion. > > > > > > For example, there is no text for discovering and dealing with > > > loops in > > > destination lists. There is no discussion about the security > > > considerations of destination lists. More justification is > > > needed for > > > inclusion in the protocol. > > > > You know, the information in the via-list and destination list > is about peer-id which is often at least 128 bit long. If the > message traverse 5 hops, the messge payload will be at least 128 * > 5 = 640. From my point of view, it is a big size because it has > not include any other payload. So the message may be fragmentated > with high probability. > > This sounds a lot smaller when you measure it in bytes==80. > Maybe you are right. But I still think it is a problem if the message traverse more hopes and we consider in response the via-list and destination-list will appear together.
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
