Subject: [p2p-sip] Draft minutes for P2P-SIP BOF at IETF 65

From: ksankar at cisco.com (Krishna Sankar (ksankar))
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 08:30:20 -0700

I think it is the other way around - we are not developing universal P2P
Architectures, but a SIP architecture (interfaces, protocols) on the top
of a semi-generic P2P substrate; so we are developing a P2P-SIP
architecture, but not *THE* P2P architecture. 

The question, then, is not if *all* P2P paradigms are fully researched
and commercialized, but do we have a good enough body of work that meets
our purposes, and that,IMHO, is YES.

Cheers
<k/>

________________________________

	From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Roy, Radhika R.
	Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 8:21 AM
	To: Mike Robinson; Spencer Dawkins; p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
	Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Draft minutes for P2P-SIP BOF at IETF 65

	Folks:

	Well, I guess that we not developing the arch for p2p-SIP per
se.

	Best regards,

	Radhika

	________________________________

		From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Robinson
	Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:30 AM
	To: Spencer Dawkins; p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
	Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Draft minutes for P2P-SIP BOF at IETF 65

	Spencer:
	...
	IRTF researchers say that
	        they are still studying P2P architectures, but ..

	    --mike

---

From: huang-ming.pan at comcast.net (Peter Pan)
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:58:10 -0700

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Krishna Sankar (ksankar)" <ksankar at cisco.com>

Krishna's comment makes senses though sounds bits like calling a stag a
horse.

Is it reasonable to be the initial step to quickly pick 3 more researched or
commercialized P2P substrata and based on them start defining the
"semi-generic substrate" that can be "verifiably" secure efficient
interoperable and extensible?

pp