Subject: [P2PSIP] Concepts draft

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:28:17 -0400

The authors of the Concepts draft have been discussing how we might  
advance this draft in preparation for the next IETF meeting.

There has been some discussion on the list recently on additional  
terms that might be added to the draft, and we are following this  
discussion closely. Once this resolves, we will propose text to cover  
this.

There is also the question of whether the P2P layer should be  
distinct from the SIP layer. In the Chicago meeting, there seemed to  
be a strong feeling that this was the right way to do, so I would  
like to official ask the chairs whether we can consider this a WG  
decision. If so, then we will document this in the draft.

However, none of this is pointing to a major revision. Most of the  
questions that are currently listed in the draft, or that were listed  
in the so-called "Joint Presentation" in Chicago remain unresolved.  
In the opinion of the authors, the next major revision needs to wait  
until the WG comes up with a clearer view of which way it wants to  
go. In particular, the 6 proposals that were presented in Chicago  
need time to mature and potentially merge before a clear consensus  
emerges.

So right now we envision only a minor update for the Vancouver meeting.

Comments?

- Philip

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

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:47:57 -0700

>So right now we envision only a minor update for the Vancouver meeting.

This is the right approach. 

We may also want to think if the concepts and glossary should be (1) one
and the same paper or (2) we may be better off (IMHO) with a separate
glossary that includes SIP, but is not necessarily focused only on SIP
alone.
Just like the ICE terminology for example makes it clear that ICE works
for more than SIP alone.

As mentioned, organizations spending money to deploy a DHT are most
likely to want to use it for a larger spectrum of applications than just
SIP.

Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Matthews [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 4:28 PM
To: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: [P2PSIP] Concepts draft

Comments?

- Philip

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:54:58 -0400

We are chartered here only to work on P2PSIP, so we can't (in the WG)
make a general P2P glossary. We have a concepts document that is a
chartered working group item to document, among other things,
terminology. Personally, I think since we have a chartered WG item for
definitions (the concepts draft) already, that is the right place for
this work, rather than a new item. There has been a great deal of work
and definition that is already reflected there.

David

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

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:30:47 -0400

> glossary that includes SIP, but is not necessarily focused only on SIP

I don't understand why you want a separate glossary document,
given that the Concepts document already has a glossary (=  
Terminology) section.

Are you saying that draft-willis-p2psip-concepts was a poor starting  
point
for the WG Concepts document?

In my opinion, as both a co-author of the current document and as a  
WG participant,
the WG Concepts document can define any terms we think are useful.

- Philip

---

From: "HUANG Ping B" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 11:18:14 +0800

Newton had said that:"I succeed because I stand on the shoulder of
Giants"(maybe), this tell us that, if we want success, just stand "on"(
not parallelly) the shoulder.:)!
 so "WG Concepts document can define any terms we think are useful." is
the best choice!
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Matthews [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 9:31 AM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts draft

> alone.

I don't understand why you want a separate glossary document, given that
the Concepts document already has a glossary (=
Terminology) section.

Are you saying that draft-willis-p2psip-concepts was a poor starting
point for the WG Concepts document?

In my opinion, as both a co-author of the current document and as a WG
participant, the WG Concepts document can define any terms we think are
useful.

- Philip