Subject: [p2p-sip] Some comments on Use-cases document

From: mike_robnson at yahoo.com (Mike Robinson)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:32:12 -0800 (PST)

Henry:
   
  Do I need to tell that 4800 P2P google references have nothing to do with P2P SIP?
   
  Please let us not obfuscate the issues. You know, as well as, anyone sincere about the value of standards, that the pre-mature standardization leads to bad design as well as failure of the standards. As I mentioned there is no compelling use case presented yet that says we need to "standardize" p2p sip now without even bothering to get output from P2P IRTF group which is looking into core issues of P2P research.  
   
  Many would say that we first need an IETF standard for P2P file sharing before we want to use "P2P" to design P2P SIP. We need more research on P2P SIP before we standardize any particular "conspiracy" (I use conspiracy in the sense of Karst definition of linking design with a particular DHT)
   
  -mike
  VOIP and SIP Trainer and Consultant

Henry Sinnreich <henry at pulver.com> wrote:
        v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}                Mike Robinson writes:
   
  >How many research ! or analytical papers have been published in this area? 
    I have found by Googling a reference listing 4,800 papers on P2P. Hopefully, this enough to get us started. J
  Henry

---------------------------------
  
  From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu [mailto:p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Robinson
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:36 PM
To: Karst Bjorgson; Kyara Yamamoto; Peter Pan
Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Some comments on Use-cases document

  Hello Karst:

Thanks explaining your "consipracy" rationale.. 

After following the  discussion  in BOF and  in ad-hoc meetingin IETF, it appears that certain people are more interested in pushing their personal agendas of p2p sip than caring for technical merits of this group. Now that I understand your point of view, and details a bit better, and it appears to me that p2p sip idea as being proposed  seems to have a real "conspiracy" behind it.

Why are are we trying to standadize some thing in hurry that is so ill-defined and is not yet ready for standardization?  How many research ! or analytical papers have been published in this area? Perhaps none! Several people, I talked to seem to favour sip over p2p rather than what is being proposed by the current crop of people that are pushing their solution with limited implementation experience. May it is some IPR thingy or something I don't understand well the politics of it. When a company and University work together, I usually become suspicious of their motivation.

Karst Bjorgson <karstbj at yahoo.com> wrote:
  > Could you please elaborate on why do you say "
> Linking P2P SIP
> to a particular DHT is specific conspiracy does not
> appear very wise.".

Most of the DHT technologies are still at the research
level. We can expect significant progress in security,
handling of locality, amount of management overhead,
etc. Ths, we may well expect that a DHT implementation
that looks attractive now will look terrible in say,
five years. This calls for a level of indirection.

Hmm....
Looks like we haven't yet reached a stage where we can really
talk of  a particular DHT being standardized in a IETF protocol.

I used the word "conspiracy" to denote the tight
coupling between notes expected in many DHT
technologies. The INSERT primitive, in most systems,
finds the node "closest" to the inserted index, and
asks that node to publish the value. In practice, this
requires a lot of trust: trust that a third party will
publish your data, just because the hash code of their
node-id is closest to the hash code of your name. That
kind of trust is easier to obtain! in small groups than
in very large systems. Thus, even if we picked a
single DHT technology, we would still want a level of
indirection to indicate which particular DHT group
should be used.

I see your point - it appears that technology needs more research
before it can be standardized. I believe there is an IRTF sub-group
researching into DHT implementations and other P2P area.  Formation
of this group should perhaps wait till some more input from IRTF is
available in this direction. Moreover, I didn't see a very compelling use
case that says the p2psip is needed right away. It does not do any thing that cannot be done with sip at least in the enterprise network
that I am familiar with.

I hope area director is reading this list.

> What is wrong with Chord that is being suggested?

I would rather b! e modest here -- Chord is a nice piece
of work, and I enjoyed reading their papers. I am
concerned mostly with two aspects: the possibility for
bad nodes to insert themselves at strategic point in
the "routing tables"; and the amount of overhead
required for table maintenance. That does not mean we
cannot use Chord, but I believe it would be a mistake
to not plan for technical evolution.

Thanks for putting this information in a clear perspective.
I do agree with your assessment.

--mike
VOIP and SIP Trainer and Consultant

---------------------------------
  
  New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates.

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/p2p-sip/attachments/20060327/0331583d/attachment-0001.html

---

From: dbarrett at quinthar.com (David Barrett)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:40:07 -0800

I guess one view is the IETF should forever be relegated to the janitorial
role of cleaning up after the party's over.  But I believe the IETF can
participate in and even promote the party through standardization.  I'd like
the IETF to do more than simply formalize de facto standards, but actually
create the standards that attract the party.  

In the case of P2P-SIP, I entirely agree there are multiple, valid, proven
ways to solve each of these problems - none of which is the clear victor.
And I also agree there are outstanding issues that have no proven solutions.

If we pick amongst the best practices today, and skip the problems to which
we have no clear solution, I personally believe that'll give us the most
immediate value, while paving the road for future improvements. I don't
believe we'll ever meet any higher standard to get started than has already
been met. 

-david 

  _____  

From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Robinson
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 10:32 AM
To: henry at pulver.com; 'Karst Bjorgson'; 'Kyara Yamamoto'; 'Peter Pan'
Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Some comments on Use-cases document

Henry:

Do I need to tell that 4800 P2P google references have nothing to do with
P2P SIP?

Please let us not obfuscate the issues. You know, as well as, anyone sincere
about the value of standards, that the pre-mature standardization leads to
bad design as well as failure of the standards. As I mentioned there is no
compelling use case presented yet that says we need to "standardize" p2p sip
now without even bothering to get output from P2P IRTF group which is
looking into core issues of P2P research.  

Many would say that we first need an IETF standard for P2P file sharing
before we want to use "P2P" to design P2P SIP. We need more research on P2P
SIP before we standardize any particular "conspiracy" (I use conspiracy in
the sense of Karst definition of linking design with a particular DHT)

-mike

V! OIP and SIP Trainer and Consultant

>How many research ! or analytical papers have been published in this area? 

I have found by Googling a reference listing 4,800 papers on P2P. Hopefully,
this enough to get us started. :-)

Henry

  _____  

From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Robinson
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 2:36 PM
To: Karst Bjorgson; Kyara Yamamoto; Peter Pan
Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Some comments on Use-cases document

! Hello Karst:

After following the  discussion  in BOF and  in ad-hoc meetingin IETF, it
appears that certain people are more interested in pushing their personal
agendas of p2p sip than caring for technical merits of this group. Now that
I understand your point of view, and details a bit better, and it appears to
me that p2p sip idea as being proposed  seems to have a real "conspiracy"
behind it.

Why are are we trying to standadize some thing in hurry that is so
ill-defined and is not yet ready for standardization?  How many research !
or analytical papers have been published in this area? Perhaps none! Several
people, I talked to seem to favour sip over p2p rather than what is being
proposed by the current crop of peo! ple that are pushing their solution
with limited implementation experience. May it is some IPR thingy or
something I don't understand well the politics of it. When a company and
University work together, I usually become suspicious of their motivation.

that looks attractive now wil! l look terrible in say,

Hmm....

I see your point - it appears that technology needs more research
before it can be standardized. I believe there is an IRTF sub-group
researching into DHT implementations and other P2P area.  Formation
of this group should perhaps wait till some more input from IRTF is
available in this direction. Moreover, I didn't see a very compelling use
case that says the p2psip is needed right away. It does not do any thing
that cannot be done with sip at least in the enterprise network
that I am familiar with.

requ! ired for table maintenance. That does not mean we

--mike

  _____  

New Ya!
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman4/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt
=39666/*http:/beta.messenger.yahoo.com%20>  hoo! Messenger with Voice. Call
regular phones from your PC for low, low rates.

  _____  

Yahoo!
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman3/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt
=39666/*http:/beta.messenger.yahoo.com>  Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone
calls for ridiculously low rates.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/p2p-sip/attachments/20060327/ab31fe7f/attachment.html