Subject: [p2p-sip] Draft charter for possible P2PSIP WG

From: royrr at us.saic.com (Roy, Radhika R.)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:58:30 -0500

We understand this that this p2p research group is addressing the problems
of p2p "research" protocol in general and not targeted for any kinds of
commercial works focusing only FW/NAT crossing for VoIP/SIP applications.
They may NOT even look anything specific to SIP or VoIP.
 
Thanks,
Radhika

  _____  

From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu on behalf of Henry Sinnreich
Sent: Mon 1/23/2006 6:44 PM
To: Roy, Radhika R.; dean.willis at softarmor.com
Cc: P2P-SIP
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Draft charter for possible P2PSIP WG

> Is there any WG in the IETF that is working on solving problems using p2p
model per se?

Excellent question!

http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/p2prg/
<http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/p2prg/>  

Thanks, Henry

  _____  

From: Roy, Radhika R. [mailto:royrr at us.saic.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 2:35 PM
To: dean.willis at softarmor.com
Cc: P2P-SIP
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Draft charter for possible P2PSIP WG

It is now becoming confusing. 

People thought that p2p-SIP will address the FW/NAT crossing as well for
VoIP services, and a lot of people spent energies discussing this. Is there
any WG in the IETF that is working on solving problems using p2p model per
se?

Will the magic of p2p-SIP not work here? If not, why not?

What are the items of the charter of p2p-SIP then? David, do you like to
provide inputs on this?

BR/Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: dean.willis at softarmor.com [mailto:dean.willis at softarmor.com
<mailto:dean.willis at softarmor.com> ]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:22 PM
To: Roy, Radhika R.
Cc: David Barrett; Pyda Srisuresh; P2P-SIP
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Draft charter for possible P2PSIP WG

If I may:

1) Getting SIP to work across NAT boundaries is not our problem here.  

It's a real problem, but one for another working group.

2) If we're not actually talking about the scope of the dra t  

charter, let;'s change the thread title, as this title is misleading.

--

Dean

On Jan 23, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Roy, Radhika R. wrote:

> David and Suresh:

> I agree with David that our focus should be p2p-SIP and hence we  

> will work first how SIP can traverse FWs/NATs to provide VoIP  

> services because p2p-SIP is also not a general purpose protocol.

> Best regards,

> Radhika

> -----Original Message-----

> From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu [mailto:p2p-sip- <mailto:p2p-sip->  

> bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of David Barrett

> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 12:17 PM

> To: Pyda Srisuresh; Philip Matthews; Dean Willis

> Cc: P2P-SIP

> Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Draft charter for possible P2PSIP WG

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Pyda Srisuresh [mailto:srisuresh at yahoo.com
<mailto:srisuresh at yahoo.com> ]

> > [suresh] OK. However, several P2P applications that do not use  

> SIP will

> > also

> > need NAT-penetration service.

> No doubt.  But I'm afraid attempting to satisfy everyone by  

> abstracting out

> a new, general purpose NAT-traversal algorithm might end up satisfying

> nobody.

> (ie, if everyone has either size 4 or size 8 feet, size 6 shoes  

> don't help.)

> Our primary audience is the SIP community, so we MUST satisfy  

> them.  We CAN

> satisfy others, but needn't.  As such, I recommend we make SIP  

> "just work"

> across NATs, and then encourage anyone who wants NAT traversal to  

> use SIP

> (even if not a VoIP application).

> -david