Subject: [p2p-sip] Single layer vs two layers

From: sathya at research.panasonic.com (Sathya Narayanan)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:19:23 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Lowekamp <lowekamp at cs.wm.edu>
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Single layer vs two layers

> Our -02 draft suggests the idea of making a UA responsible for storing
> replicas by modifying the resource URI and registering each replica
> separately.  There are pros and cons to this, but it does avoid having
> the responsible node also be responsible for maintaining replicas just
> because it received a REGISTER. 

This is exactly my point. The design choice of who must be responsible for replicas is being forced on us by the choice to use SIP. If we have a new protocol design, that decision will be based on what is the best (in terms of reliability and efficiency) for the overlay operations.

thanks,
Sathya 

> I haven't contemplated yet whether we
> can simply use sip-outbound techniques to accomplish replicas, but
> that might be an interesting question.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> On 3/21/06, Sathya Narayanan <sathya at research.panasonic.com> wrote:
> > Even assuming that the semantics of REGISTER message matches the 
> required semantics for node join and resource add of a DHT, how 
> are we going to address replication of resources on DHT. We have 
> to extend the way REGISTER message is used to support whatever 
> form of replication is developed, while AFAIK replication is not 
> part of the REGISTER semantics today. And I am sure there will be 
> other requirements to have a stable overlay network that will need 
> further changes.
>