Subject: [Sipping] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-johnston-sipping-p2p-ipcom-01.txt

From: "Johnston, Alan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:33:46 +0000

All,

I have updates my SIP P2P draft with some new ideas.

Comments are, as always, greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Alan Johnston
sip:[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 2:37 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-johnston-sipping-p2p-ipcom-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title		: SIP, P2P, and Internet Communications
	Author(s)	: A. Johnston
	Filename	: draft-johnston-sipping-p2p-ipcom-01.txt
	Pages		: 14
	Date		: 2005-3-18
	
This draft discusses issues related to the application of peer to
   peer (P2P) technologies to SIP in particular, and Internet
   communications in general.  After an analysis of the P2P and non-P2P
   capabilities of SIP, this draft proposes that a P2P protocol be
   standardized in the IETF as a protocol used between a
   Registrar/Proxy/Redirect server and a Location Service.  This allows
   the operator of a Registrar to decide how much registration state is
   be stored locally and how much can be distributed using the P2P
   network to a distributed Location Server.  A number of DHT
   (Distributed Hash Table) P2P protocols that solve some similar
   functions are given as examples and could be used as input to this
   work.  Finally, existing SIP and P2P work is surveyed with respect to
   this proposal.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-johnston-sipping-p2p-ipcom-01.
txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of
the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-johnston-sipping-p2p-ipcom-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-johnston-sipping-p2p-ipcom-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail
readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:11:08 -0500

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-johnston-sipping-p2p-ipcom-01.txt

Alan:

I liked the new version of your document. I have no major issues with
its conclusions. The comments below are just minor comments on the
details of your argument, not on the major conclusions.

I also noticed some minor grammar and punctuation problems -- I can send
them to you if you care, but I am assuming this draft is just a position
paper and not meant for publication as an RFC.

*) [Page 6] "The IETF typically does not standardize decomposition protocols,
        such as these, though there are notable exceptions such as MEGACO."
    GSMP and especially FORCES are other exceptions. The barrier is
    crumbling these days.

*) [Page 6] "Since the IETF does not standardize services ..."
    What about CPL? This seems to be a standardization of service logic.

*) [Page 7] " ... Location Service Protocol (LSP) ... need a better name
        so to be clear that this protocol has nothing to do with GEOPRIV) ..."
    Or MPLS (LSP = "Label Switched Paths")
    Or ISIS (LSP = "Link State Packet")
    Or ...

*) [Page 7, middle] The proposed Location Service Protocol may need to
    return more than just a simple Contact URI. In a pure Peer-to-peer
    SIP network, if the user's phone is not reachable (e.g., it is a
    wireless phone that is out of range), then we would still like
    the call to follow the user's call handling preferences. This might
    involve taking voicemail for the user, or forwarding the call to
    another AoR. The user might have expressed these call handling
    preferences by uploading a CPL script to the "network" somehow
    beforehand.
    This might be handled by:
    (a) returning the CPL script to the caller, or
    (b) returning a primary and some secondary contacts (where the secondary
        contacts know what to do if the primary contact is not available).
    I think (a) might have security issues, so my current preference
    is for (b).

*) [Page 7, bottom] If a domain publishes registration information to
    the public Location Service, it will still need to store registration
    information because it is participating in this public Location Service
    and will have to store a portion of the global information.
    (I guess this assumes the public Location Service is implemented using
    peer-to-peer technology).

*) [Page 10, middle] CAN, Pastry, and Tapestry are also DHT algorithms.

*) You might want to mention that a Location Service protocol could be
    built on top of a more general peer-to-peer lookup protocol.

- Philip