Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] implementation must *lead* standardization

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:55:53 +0200

Hi David,

>> All of the proposed protocols would fail the "widely deployed" criteria.
>>     
>
> Er, none of HTTP, SSH, DNS, FTP, IRC, POP, SMTP are widely deployed?  Uh...
>
>   
No. I tried to figure out what the relevance of Henry's post with 
respect to this group is.
Which protocols discussed in this group are widely deployed?

It is nice to have some high-level discussions but there should at the 
end be some conclusion. I am missing the conclusion for this group.

Ciao
Hannes

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

---

From: "Michael Slavitch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:19:55 -0400

We have  Bamboo/OpenDHT,  we have ICE* for NAT traversal.  What we don't
need now is any more deliberation without some form of implementation.
What we need now is our Mosaic.   That will tell us where we are barking up
the wrong tree.  P2PSIP will then respond to real shortcomings getting in
the way of real problems the same way HTTP evolved.   Telnet and email and
even TCP evolved  the same way back in the stone age.

Given that:

1]  Is there someone on this list capable of applying for a grant in the
same way UIUC applied for a grant for Mosaic?

2]  If so, please do so, and try to build a Skype equivalent with
Bamboo/OpenDHT/ICE/SIP.  I can offer references,  as  can others.

3]  Don't worry about it being perfect, let it be open source and based on
protocol willing to be open to change and adapt to IETF standardization for
the lower bits.  Like the W3 the higher bits may go somewhere else for
standardization.

4]  Don't even think about writing an internet-draft .

5] Make sure it doesn't need servers and only a bootstrap.  Thanks.

I could try the equivalent of this with VC's, but like the Boston's VC's's
that laughed at the Facebook lads my locals will likely laugh too.

Regards

Michael

Objectworld, The IT Telephony Company TM

308 Legget Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2K 1Y6

Phone: +1 (613) 599-9698, x. 22 | Fax: +1 (613) 599-7457

http://www.objectworld.com

-- 
Michael Slavitch
Ottawa Ontario Canada

---

From: "David Barrett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:30:38 -0700

Personally, I'd go further and suggest we need somebody willing to not only
build our Mosiac, we need someone willing to do it even though the result
will more than likely be rejected by this group for years before we finally
accept it.

We need somebody who recognizes that the "customer" for P2PSIP isn't the
IETF, and it's not the people on this list.  The customer is the user who
actually chooses it over competing alternatives, be that alternative Skype
or AT&T or IM or simply not talking at all.

So we need somebody who will take all the very excellent ideas discussed on
this list, boil them down to the tiny subset that actually matters, build
something that actually works for real users, and then focus on getting them
to adopt it - despite our howls of incredulity that it ignores 80% of our
suggestions and only handles 20% of our use cases (the 20% that matter).

And then later, once he's succeeded in getting users to adopt his protocol
(which might or might not bear any similarity to what we've discussed in our
drafts), then he can come back here and tell us what P2P2SIP actually *is*
(and not merely what we'd like it to be), and we can get started refining it
to P2PSIP 1.1, 2.0, and beyond.

That's how all the other great protocols came about, so far as I can tell.
Indeed, you might even say that's the standard technique for developing
great protocols.  Who are we to deviate from standards?

-david

  _____  

From: Michael Slavitch [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 1:20 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: David Barrett; Henry Sinnreich; P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] implementation must *lead* standardization

Given that:

Regards

Michael

 

Hi David,

Ciao
Hannes

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

-- 
Michael Slavitch
Ottawa Ontario Canada

---

From: "Peter Pan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:29:26 -0700

sounds i am not alone in finding a flight ticket to swig Mr. Willis's
home-brewed root beer :-)

me 200% agree with David's and Michael's comments EXCEPT the words "open
source". i am still suffering from them.

one chilling evening in 2005 i proprosed to my boss a p2psip project that
had been privately undergoing my moonlights for months. he laughed and
walked away after this last piece of conversation:

  me: "open source makes us light in efforts but heavy in success."
  he: "if all can do it, where is our benefit?"

few days after the proposal i was consecutively loaded with several p2p
UNRELATED projects which have kept my energy and enthusiasm off p2p-sip
since then.

my boss must have thought me as a dilly-dally on that night.

as my boss did, most VCs will laugh at an open-source oosperm.

pp
----- Original Message -----
From: David Barrett
To: 'Michael Slavitch' ; 'Hannes Tschofenig'
Cc: 'Henry Sinnreich' ; 'P2PSIP Mailing List'
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] implementation must *lead* standardization

-david

Given that:

Regards
Michael

Ciao
Hannes

--
Michael Slavitch
Ottawa Ontario Canada

---

From: Ping Pan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:31:46 -0700

On the contrary, one major problem with p2p applications is that they 
are not compatible with each other. As such it's very difficult to build 
services or business on top of p2p (unless you own the entire ecosystem 
such as Skype).

IMHO, p2p is nothing more than one type of technology, and technology 
does not translate to business unless it is easily obtainable and 
cost-effective in becoming a building block of some sort.

People on this thread have mentioned Mosaic. This is a classic example 
where it showed how Web supposes to work, and thus opened the door for 
the Internet boom. Open source (running) code or IETF standard, at the 
end of the day, does not matter, as long as people know the standard 
method to get applications working together.

2 cents,

- Ping

---

From: "Peter Pan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:07:34 -0700

pls dont read me wrong. i'm a diehard after open source!!

i forgot to add this to my prior msg: i wish i would be the only victim for
and by open-source p2psip.

pp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Slavitch" <[email-masked]>
To: "Peter Pan" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] implementation must *lead* standardization

> "i am still suffering from them."
>
> Open source is how we share proprietary implementations.  No joke.
>
> You read open source.  You test your ideas on it.  You code commercial
> because you own the coders and you control your own deliverables.  The
> open source shows you how it works. What doesn't change is that the
> open source contains a reference implementation of the protocol as
> expressed in code. That is what matters.  Any wonder why so many
> critical coders for Linux were IRL coding for IBM, HP and Sun, before
> those three got Linux religion?
>
>
> On 9/23/07, Peter Pan <[email-masked]> wrote:

---

From: "Peter Pan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:17:55 -0700

though we look as of the same family (actually we aren't!), i cannot agree
with your "ietf paramount" theory. sorry, "brother"!

it seems we are running back into the same chicken egg of 2 years ago.

pp

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ping Pan" <[email-masked]>
To: "Peter Pan" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "David Barrett" <[email-masked]>; "'Michael Slavitch'"
<[email-masked]>; "'Hannes Tschofenig'" <[email-masked]>;
"'Henry Sinnreich'" <[email-masked]>; "'P2PSIP Mailing List'"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] implementation must *lead* standardization