Subject: [p2p-sip] Revised concepts draft

From: RADHIKA.R.ROY at saic.com (Roy, Radhika R.)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:00:43 -0400

More clarifications are as follows:

1. Even the concept draft needs a little more clarifications and
refinements.

2. Architecture draft is a good first try to check whether it meets the
concept, but it is far from clear as it is limited between two extreme
ends: P2P (much boarder scope) and P2P-SIP (not only the scope is
narrow, but also confusing at times). A lot more work is needed to
clarify what the actual architecture will look like in P2P-SIP.

3. P2P-SIP WG charter is definitely more important because it will guide
us for standardization (see item 2).

4. We have much clearer idea what this WG will up to as discussed in the
last BoF, and AD has properly summarized all findings.

5. Further delay in forming the WG based on the charter will disappoint
many of us.

6. (My personal opinion is this: In the future, SIP, Presence, IM, and
all other applications need to be modified to meet the pure P2P
architecture, not as narrowly scoped like P2P-SIP.)

Best regards,
Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:42 AM
To: Enrico Marocco; Dean Willis
Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Revised concepts draft

Agreed that the charter is the first document we need.
However, the closer we have to an agreed architecture/framework
document,
the more likely I believe we will be seen as moving in a direction that
is
likely to finish in some reasonable time.

I do agree with David that the current "architecture" document isn't
right,
and the concepts draft is.  I also believe that including the primary
use
cases in the concepts would be helpful to a new reader.  I'd like to see
other comments on that.

Scope is a big deal in this work group, and one of the things we WILL
have
to police ourselves on is scope creep.  While we don't have to, yet,
prune
the use cases to those we will consider for our first chartered effort,
we
WILL do this quite soon, so be thinking about it.  Choosing the couple
that
might go into the concepts document is the beginning of that.  This is
not a
kitchen sink effort; we will focus on something we can achieve readily,
and
then move on if we need to.  Discussions prior to and at the ad-hoc gave
a
lot of people hope this work CAN be scoped reasonably, and that's what
we
need to do.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu [mailto:p2p-sip-
> bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Enrico Marocco
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:17 AM
> To: Dean Willis
> Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Revised concepts draft
> 
> Dean Willis wrote:
> > How can we better illustrate what we mean by the concepts and terms
> > in the concepts and terminology draft?
> >
> > I'd like to have it make even MORE sense to a green-field reader.
> >
> > Is a high level discussion of a few use-cases something that would
be
> > helpful?
> 
> I think it would be useful to have a sort of "manifesto" informational
> RFC, both describing use cases and defining the concepts of the P2PSIP
> solution.  However, the editorial work is not trivial and should be
done
> by the formed WG; for chartering purpose only concepts and terminology
> should be considered.
> 
> --
> Enrico
> --------------------------------------------------------------------