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 07:41:29 -0800

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.

>> 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.

Cheers
<k/>
________________________________

	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> 
	
--------------------------------------------------------------------