Subject: [p2p-sip] Some comments on Use-cases document <KS>Slightly long e-mail </KS>

From: ksankar at cisco.com (Krishna Sankar (ksankar))
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:33:48 -0800

Yep, makes sense. 

Just as a clarification, by anonymity, I meant the security mechanisms
against eavesdropping, mangling and other malicious schemes as well as
defense against profiling and traffic pattern hatching. Basically
anonymity to the P2P SIP substrate. In fact many of these approximate to
full anonymity anyway. So we will need these even in the first go
around.  

Cheers
<k/>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eunsoo Shim [mailto:eunsoo at research.panasonic.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 8:10 AM
> To: Krishna Sankar (ksankar)
> Cc: Enrico Marocco; p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu; Roy, Radhika R.
> Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Some comments on Use-cases document 
> <KS> Slightly longe-mail </KS>
> 
> Krishna Sankar (ksankar) wrote:
> 
> >Enrico,
> >
> >	Thanks for taking time to reply and clarify the thoughts.
> >
> >  
> >
> >>>likely achievable. Which issues do you feel have not been properly
> >>>      
> >>>
> >addressed?
> >
> >	Re. the usecases, they are excellent as a goal, but we 
> will have to 
> >select and prioritize them. Also, as I had mentioned, we 
> need a feature 
> >set matrix. Let me take time to think through and may be add a 
> >preliminary feature matrix.
> >
> >  
> >
> I think we should distinguish the use cases in the use cases 
> draft and the use cases listed in the proposed charter.
> The use cases draft was intended to collect all possible use 
> cases rather than to identify the immediate target use cases.
> For example, the use cases draft talks about anonymous 
> communication but the proposed charter puts anonymous 
> communication as a possible future work item.
> The use cases draft will help us in understanding what other 
> uses are possible while we design the protocol with a limited 
> set of immediate target use cases in mind.
> Now we should focus on the use cases listed in the charter 
> because those are what were proposed as the immediate target 
> use cases.
> David picked one of the three use cases in the proposed charter.
> It seems to me that the three use cases are all reasonably 
> solvable and we can identify and design tools for them.
> 
> >  
> >
> >>>architecture focused on interconnection between possibly different
> >>>      
> >>>
> >P2P and C/S islands; and obviously the
> >  
> >
> >>>interconnection must be the one already defined for traditional SIP
> >>>      
> >>>
> >(RFC 3263).
> >
> >	The messages and protocols for the connection part are 
> relatively 
> >easier, but the rest (like anonymity and bandwidth shaping, 
> to name a 
> >few) would need lot more work. But if we bound the problem 
> and say (as 
> >David mentioned in his last e-mail) first we will attempt 
> control path 
> >primitives, we have a workable set. As the problem simplifies to 
> >maintaining the various tables (which itself is not 
> trivial), we can at 
> >least add the required security, anonymity and other 
> primitives. Also 
> >we can attempt to make the mechanics and mechanisms 
> independent of any 
> >specific P2P domain.
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> Thanks.
> 
> Eunsoo
> 
> >________________________________
> >
> >	From: Enrico Marocco [mailto:enrico.marocco at telecomitalia.it] 
> >	Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:13 AM
> >	To: Krishna Sankar (ksankar)
> >	Cc: Mike Robinson; Roy, Radhika R.; p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> >	Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Some comments on Use-cases document <KS> 
> >Slightly long e-mail </KS>
> >	
> >	
> >	 
> >	Some comments about some thoughts:
> >	
> >	> b) First we need to bound the trajectory and locus of P2P SIP
> >	
> >	I really appreciate the proposed roadmap (8/06->usecases,
> >	1/07->architecture, 7/07->proto); it allows a pretty 
> pipeline and is
> >	likely achievable. Which issues do you feel have not 
> been properly
> >	addressed?
> >	
> >	> d) Then we also need to see what feature set we need - like 
> >anonymity
> >	> (for example leveraging primitives from tor) and 
> traffic shaping 
> >(for
> >	> resource constraint devices - may be need to look at sensor
> >networks)
> >	
> >	The main architectural idea is to allow different 
> feature sets for
> >	different networks. Actually the requirements in different 
> >environments
> >	are unlikely the same and, in many cases, need 
> centralization (e.g. 
> >C/S
> >	SIP) for being satisfied. So far, the main consensus is 
> on defining an
> >	architecture focused on interconnection between 
> possibly different P2P
> >	and C/S islands; and obviously the interconnection must 
> be the one
> >	already defined for traditional SIP (RFC 3263).
> >	
> >	> Are we any way connected with domains like Ad-Hoc networks ?
> >	
> >	Sure! It would be great to set up instantaneus gaming 
> sessions without
> >	needing access points and stuff like that.. and 
> eventually I will be
> >	able to join "Quake Parties" during my long airport waits ;-)
> >	
> >	> h) As it was mentioned in an earlier e-mail, Jabber, 
> in some sense 
> >has a
> >	> P2P SIP substrate. By the time we finish, we might 
> resemble XMPP 
> >more
> >	> than one ways
> >	
> >	Jabber has servers and clients strictly separated; it 
> is as P2P as 
> >email
> >	is. OTOH SIP has enpoints assembling UACs and UASs and 
> that's why it
> >	could be considered /almost/ P2P.
> >	
> >	> I think we need to first make sure we separate any 
> DHT mechanism and
> >	> then standardize the interfaces, protocols and the mechanics.
> >Pluggable
> >	> P2P is a good way to go.
> >	
> >	This option as the remaining items on your mail hit the 
> consensus of 
> >the
> >	most part of the group.
> >	
> >	Enrico
> >	
> >	
> >	
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >	CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> >	This message and its attachments are addressed solely 
> to the persons
> >	above and may contain confidential information. If you 
> have received
> >	the message in error, be informed that any use of the 
> content hereof
> >	is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the 
> sender and delete
> >	the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by
> >	replying to webmaster at telecomitalia.it 
> ><mailto:webmaster at telecomitalia.it> .
> >	        Thank you
> >	                                        www.telecomitalia.it 
> ><http://www.telecomitalia.it>
> >	
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >p2p-sip mailing list
> >p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> >https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip
> >  
> >
>