Subject: [P2PSIP] Agenda for the upcoming meeting in Vancouver

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:46:42 -0500

Please find the newest version of the agenda below.

A few comments. To minimize slide changing time we are going to insist
(no exceptions) that slides be sent to the chairs in no later than 5pm
Tuesday night so we can have them all ready to go.

We are taking the approach of leading discussion on 5 topics that have
generated list traffic. We have allocated :15 minutes for each. Each
person listed as a leader should make slides and discuss them on list
prior to the meeting, with an eye toward the discussion being able to
reach some real consensus on that issue. If people don't get something
out prior to Vancouver, we may find a different leader. Please check
to see if you are a proposed leader. If you are and don't want to be,
let us know and we'll find someone else.

We've left time at the end for specific protocol discussions, but if
we run overtime, these will get bumped. For the existing ones, the
focus should be on what is new. For the new protocols (those submitted
this cycle) the talk must be on why you made a new protocol (What is
unique about it/benefits over the earlier proposals)

Thanks,

David (and Brian) (as chairs)

Agenda:

P2PSIP Agenda

Wednesday, 5 December, 2007, 1300-1500 in Salon D/E

Chairs:
  David Bryan <[email-masked]>
  Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>

Agenda Bash/Administrivia (Chairs) :10

Open Questions Discussion :15 minutes per topic

  The purpose of this section is to discuss, in detail, a few of the
  topics that have been being discussed most extensively on the mailing
  list and that the group appears to have to address to move forward on
  a serious protocol draft. Goals here are grand and lofty and we may
  have to settle for less...

  The proposed leader *must* discuss this (and share slide text in
  advance of the meeting) on-list to build up a good discussion on the
  topic.

  Topic: "Routing: What does it look like?"
  Leader: Spencer Dawkins
  Goal: How many routing techniques do we need, and can we pick a set?
    Discuss/compare different routing techniques (iterative, recursive,
    semi-recursive, as well as symmetric vs. asymmetric). Can we decide
    on a set for the protocol to implement?

  Topic: "NAT Traversal for P2P Messages"
  Leader: Philip Matthews
  Goal: Decide on what a NAT traversal mechanism will look like.
    How do we implement NAT traversal for P2P messages? How do we locate
    STUN servers (if we use them)

  Topic: "Do we need clients (other than SIP)?"
  Leader: Marcin Matuszewski
  Goal: Present a set of use cases for why clients are needed, get
    consensus or if we need them

  Topic: "PeerID assignment and Chosen Location Attacks"
  Leader: Eric Rescorla
  Goal: Understand the implications of PeerID assignment on security
    Take a look at how PeerIDs can be selected, and how this affects
    chosen location attacks. Discuss different approaches offered for
    ID assignment.

  Topic: "Replication"
  Leader: Bruce Lowekamp
  Goal: Understand the problems inherent in replication.
    Compare mechanisms for replication (root replicates, source
    replicates, other) and discuss how we might select. More
    importantly, *where* in the protocol (DHT level, application
    level) should this happen?

Concepts Document (TBD) :10
  Open questions on the concepts draft. Hopefully, some clarification
  to some questions will come from the above discussions.

(Very unlikely to actually get time...)

Peer Protocol Proposal Discussions (authors) :05 per proposal (:10 for
  merged proposals so as not to penalize merging. Time permitting)

  Time limit will be *very* strictly enforced

  For existing proposals, topic must be about what has changed since
  the last version. For new proposals, topic must be what is new about
  this draft? Why a new draft instead of a tweak to one of the existing
  proposals?

  * RELOAD (merged with ASP, :10)
  * P2PP
  * HIPHOP
  * XPP
  * with HIP
  * SEP/Client Protocol
  * P2PNS

Reading:

Because this agenda revolves around the questions, rather than specific
drafts being proposed, a specific reading list is not possible. See
www.p2psip.org/ietf.php for a list of current drafts, and revisit the
mailing list for recent discussion on these items.

-- 
David A. Bryan
[email-masked]
+1.757.565.0101 x101
+1.757.565.0088 (fax)
www.SIPeerior.com

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: "Jani Hautakorpi (JO/LMF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:02:54 +0200

Hi David and others,

I would like to suggest a small change to the agenda. Could the "HIPHOP" 
and "with HIP" be moved from "Peer Protocol Proposal Discussions" to 
"Open Questions Discussion". The reasoning being that they are not 
really peer protocol proposals. The title of the presentation could be 
"Should HIP be used for managing connections between peers?".

Quite often the "with-hip" draft is mistakenly seen as a peer protocol 
proposal, but in fact it describes how HIP can be used *with* other peer 
protocols (e.g., RELOAD and P2PP).

-- 
Jani

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:40:06 -0500

This might be a useful change, and potentially more valuable than 5  
minutes on each proposal.

However, I feel compelled to point out one point: Jani feels strongly  
that P2PSIP needs to adopt HIP as-is, while I am now of the opinion  
that P2PSIP may instead wish to look individually at the features of  
HIP and consider which are worth adopting. So if I was asked to lead  
such a discussion, I would talk about the various features of HIP  
individually and compare them with their alternatives.

Never-the-less, I do think this would be a valuable discussion. (Of  
course, there are lots of valuable discussions in P2PSIP ...)

- Philip

On 27-Nov-07, at 04:02 , Jani Hautakorpi (JO/LMF) wrote:

> Hi David and others,
>
> I would like to suggest a small change to the agenda. Could the  
> "HIPHOP" and "with HIP" be moved from "Peer Protocol Proposal  
> Discussions" to "Open Questions Discussion". The reasoning being  
> that they are not really peer protocol proposals. The title of the  
> presentation could be "Should HIP be used for managing connections  
> between peers?".
>
> Quite often the "with-hip" draft is mistakenly seen as a peer  
> protocol proposal, but in fact it describes how HIP can be used  
> *with* other peer protocols (e.g., RELOAD and P2PP).
>
>
> -- 
> Jani
>
> David A. Bryan wrote:

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:35:55 +0200

Hi Philip,

a clarification: are you thinking of modifying HIP to suit our (P2PSIP) 
needs (there is ongoing to work to specify a HIP message to carry 
payloads such as signalling messages and to allow HIP to negotiate other 
security mechanisms other than ESP), or to re-implement those parts of 
HIP P2PSIP needs using a different protocol?

Thanks,

Gonzalo

Philip Matthews wrote:
> that P2PSIP needs to adopt HIP as-is, while I am now of the opinion that 
> P2PSIP may instead wish to look individually at the features of HIP and 
> consider which are worth adopting. So if I was asked to lead such a 
> discussion, I would talk about the various features of HIP individually 
> and compare them with their alternatives.
> 
>> Discussions" to "Open Questions Discussion". The reasoning being that 
>> they are not really peer protocol proposals. The title of the 
>> proposal, but in fact it describes how HIP can be used *with* other 
>> peer protocols (e.g., RELOAD and P2PP).
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Jani
>>
>> David A. Bryan wrote:

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:56:32 -0500

On 27-Nov-07, at 08:35 , Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

> Hi Philip,
>
> a clarification: are you thinking of modifying HIP to suit our  
> (P2PSIP) needs (there is ongoing to work to specify a HIP message  
> to carry payloads such as signalling messages and to allow HIP to  
> negotiate other security mechanisms other than ESP), or to re- 
> implement those parts of HIP P2PSIP needs using a different protocol?
>

This is a good question.
As you know, there has been quite a bit of discussion in the past few  
months over the best way to interface HIP signaling with the Peer  
Protocol. We have investigated (a) putting HIP below the Peer  
Protocol (HIP-HOP), and (b) carrying HIP signaling messages in the  
body of Peer Protocol messages (WITH-HIP-01). Personally, I am not  
completely happy with either approach right now, so I am currently  
leaning towards approach (c): integrating aspects of HIP signaling  
into the Peer Protocol.

Part of the issue concerns what aspects of HIP we want for P2PSIP.  
The aspects in question are:
1) The concept of the id/locator split
2) The concept of encrypting messages using ESP (vs. TLS/DTLS)
3) The concept of protecting against denial of service attacks using  
puzzles
I don't think the group has thought a lot about these questions  
(particularly, the DoS attack question), so a discussion would be good.

---

From: "Jani Hautakorpi (JO/LMF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:21:07 +0200

Hi Philip,

Despite the differences in opinion, I still think that it would be 
beneficial to present how HIP (or HIP-like mechanism) could be utilized 
*with* existing Peer Protocol proposals. It would also give people a 
chance to understand that with-hip is not yet another peer protocol 
proposal.

Furthermore, I think that the proposed "Should HIP be used for managing 
connections between peers?" presentation is tackling a bit of the same 
topics as now listed "NAT Traversal for P2P Messages" and "PeerID 
assignment and Chosen Location Attacks" presentations.

-- 
Jani

Philip Matthews wrote:
>> --Jani

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:35:52 -0500

On 27-Nov-07, at 10:21 , Jani Hautakorpi (JO/LMF) wrote:

> beneficial to present how HIP (or HIP-like mechanism) could be  
> utilized *with* existing Peer Protocol proposals. It would also  
> give people a chance to understand that with-hip is not yet another  
> peer protocol proposal.

I agree.
I suggest the topic be renamed to something like "What should be the  
relationship between HIP and P2PSIP?".

- Philip

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:03:09 -0800

At Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:46:42 -0500,
>     chosen location attacks. Discuss different approaches offered for

This is the first I've heard of this assignment, but if people think
it's interesting for us to discuss, sure I'm willing to do it.  I
think we've already had a bunch of discussion on the list...

>   * RELOAD (merged with ASP, :10)

This doesn't seem fair. RELOAD is now one proposal, regardless of
how it got there. We should get 5 minutes like everyone else.

> mailing list for recent discussion on these items.

When I went through the drafts it sure seemed to me like many of them
had useful perspectives on these issues. Could the chairs please
provide a reading list of drafts for each question?

-Ekr

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:42:45 -0500

Inline

> think we've already had a bunch of discussion on the list...

That's why I told folks if they don't want the assignment, they can
refuse. Glad you are interested. This stems from the suggestion by
Henning a few weeks ago that we tackle some topics, rather than focus
too much on individual drafts. BTW yes, there has been a bunch of
discussion on list...that was how these topics were selected.

> how it got there. We should get 5 minutes like everyone else.

After putting the original agenda together with :5 each, Brian
expressed a strong opion on wanting to *not* penalize merges by
essentially shorting people time for doing. If you want to give up
your 5 minutes, we're happy to use it for something else...I'm still
not convinced we'll get to the individual discussions anyway.

> provide a reading list of drafts for each question?

As you just stated, many of the more than a dozen current drafts
submitted have useful perspective on the issues. I don't really think
it makes sense for me to, essentially, list the dozen or so drafts
that are relevant to each question, especially since many (including
each of the proposed protocols) has things to say on each.

David

-- 
David A. Bryan
[email-masked]
+1.757.565.0101 x101
+1.757.565.0088 (fax)
www.SIPeerior.com

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:42:32 -0800

At Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:42:45 -0500,
> discussion on list...that was how these topics were selected.

Yes, my point was that I didn't think I needed to start a discussion,
since there already has been one.

> each of the proposed protocols) has things to say on each.

Actually, I think that would be extremely useful.

-Ekr

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:26:46 -0800

At Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:42:32 -0800,
> Actually, I think that would be extremely useful.

To expand on this a little bit: not all of the drafts address
each issue, and it would be useful for people who are interested
in each issue to be able to know which drafts to focus on.

As a secondary issue, my experience is that people only read the
drafts that are on the reading list. To have a good discussion
based on the drafts then we need people to read them, which means we
should have an explicit list.

-Ekr

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:59:47 -0500

Inline.

> since there already has been one.

I'd like to see the slides cover the discussion, rather than one
person's viewpoint (hence why the people are listed as "leader" -- in
many cases these are contentious issues and we have picked an active
participant, who in many cases is also a partisan...I assume people
can at least present both sides of the issue in the slides, even if in
the discussion they vociferously argue for their perspective). As
such, I'd like discussion about what will be presented so we don't
have a problem where only one person's view is presented on the
slides. That is really what I was talking about. We have had
discussion or the topic wouldn't have made the list.

> Actually, I think that would be extremely useful.

I am afraid I really disagree with you here. We tried something
similar when we discussed broad issues/topics in Prague, and a few
folks later mentioned to me that particular drafts they felt had said
something on the issue were not being listed for that topics reading.
Essentially, it would be my/Brian's personal opinion as to whether a
particular draft had anything useful to say on a broad topic, a
decision I believe is in the eye of the beholder. If you as an
individual want to go ahead and make a list, that is great but
personally, I feel quite strongly that is not an appropriate thing for
a chair to do. Obviously we will list drafts for more narrow topics or
particular draft discussions.

David (as chair)

-- 
David A. Bryan
[email-masked]
+1.757.565.0101 x101
+1.757.565.0088 (fax)
www.SIPeerior.com

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:10:05 -0800

Both David and EKR make some very good arguments, though I believe the
central theme should be the existentialist topics for P2PSIP and have
changed the subject title accordingly. Here are some examples:

1. P2PSIP must work on the Internet 'as is'

1.1. NAT traversal since most peers will be behind several NAT.

Though these is a wide-spread belief that ICE is the answer, we don't
know if it is the only answer, if it is the best answer, what the %
success ratio is, what the performance and complexity may be. There are
no deployment data to make any judgments, nor have any measuring tools
even been proposed.

2.2. Solutions based on HIP and other NG Internet technologies.

What is the risk assessment they may actually happen and when?

3. Security

We have an abundance of security solutions, but no assessment of what is
the minimal solutions that will be good enough and no more (such as ZRTP
for CS SIP)?
Remember that too much security comes at a heavy cost and may fail in
the market. What is the right balance for some sample usage scenarios?

3. What will make P2PSIP a successful protocol?

3.1. To what degree should preference be given to free and open software
such as the SER, Bamboo and P2PP?

3.2. To what degree to give preference to I-Ds written by authors
actually developing and testing P2PSIP? (and making the software
available)

Reference: What Makes For a Successful Protocol? 
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-iab-protocol-suc
cess-01.txt  

This is just a sample list. Maybe during the Agenda Bashing or here on
the list people can contribute to what are the most critical issues to
discuss and to solve.

What do you think? What are the most critical topics for the agenda?

Henry  

-----Original Message-----
From: David A. Bryan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:00 AM
To: Eric Rescorla
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Agenda for the upcoming meeting in Vancouver

Inline.

David (as chair)

-- 
David A. Bryan
[email-masked]
+1.757.565.0101 x101
+1.757.565.0088 (fax)
www.SIPeerior.com

---

From: "Jani Hautakorpi (JO/LMF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:43:23 +0200

Hi Henry,

Henry Sinnreich wrote:
> ...

I didn't quite understand this question. Could you clarify what you 
meant by this?

I would like to point out that, for example, the mechanisms in with-hip 
draft does not require global deployment of HIP-enabled operating 
systems or anything like that; the with-hip mechanisms can be embedded 
to the P2PSIP applications.

-- 
Jani

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:37:19 -0800

Jani,

Thanks for note!

>the with-hip mechanisms can be embedded 

This means that on the laptop I am currently using there would be two TCP/IP stacks:

1. The native TCP/IP stack of the existing OS (WinXP in my case),

2. A 2nd TCP stack in the P2PSIP application. While this would work, I am wondering about the performance and ease of integrating with WinXP (in my example).

3. I would need to duplicate the expertise put in the existing TCP/IP stack that has taken years to develop to where it is now.

4. Don't residential routers and other network elements have to understand HIP?

My apology for the possibly naïve questions.
Can you provide some comfort for the above concerns?

Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Jani Hautakorpi (JO/LMF) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:43 AM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: David A. Bryan; Eric Rescorla; P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Agenda for the upcoming meeting in Vancouver (existentialist topics)

Hi Henry,

-- 
Jani