Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts draft

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:15:56 +0200

Philip Matthews wrote:
> 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.

Philip, I completely agree on this point, but I am afraid that the
wording may be misleading.  I completely share the opinion that the peer
protocol should not be SIP as in early proposals, but I don't think that
SIP should not be used at all (e.g. for negotiating peer protocol
sessions or for registering peer identifiers).

Judging from previous discussions that we've had, that's not the point
you are getting at anyway, so to avoid misunderstanding, could we make
sure that we make this clear in the text?

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

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 07:11:25 -0700

I suspect that you a better way to phrase this might be along lines  
of something like "not using SIP as the transport for the P2PSIP"  
protocol.

Cullen <with my individual hat on>

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 09:48:12 -0700

What really energized me to propose a glossary document were various
symptoms that we really need one. Here are some examples:

- What is a root node?

- What is the difference between a locus and nodeID?
  (This may be my own ignorance)

"What's in a name" is at the core of computer science and a workable
P2PSIP standard must start with clear terminology, which is this case
goes beyond SIP. Our terms must be understood by the existing p2p/DHT
industry at large
 (the over 50% of p2p traffic on the Internet is not coming from
extraterrestrials).

The concepts draft is an excellent start and it is clearly necessary,
but maybe not sufficient. We need a glossary draft as well for the above
reasons.

Charter arguments matter very little here IMHO and are certainly of no
interest to the industry.

Henry

---

From: Zheng Hewen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:26:33 +0800

>>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.

In favor!

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Matthews [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 2007?9?1? 5:28
To: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: [P2PSIP] Concepts draft

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

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 14:02:43 -0400

> sure that we make this clear in the text?

Good point.  I had not meant to rule out things like the way XPP uses  
SIP.

Cullen's proposed wording is one solution to this problem. However,
another solution might be to simply not say anything about the  
separation
of SIP and the P2P layer at this point, and wait for things to settle  
out a bit.
That way, we can be even more definite about what we mean.

- Philip

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:47:45 -0700

>   (This may be my own ignorance)

It's a good question and one others have asked too.

The locus is pretty much what the draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-00 calls  
a P2PSIP Resource-ID which it defines as

       P2PSIP Resource-ID:  A non-human-friendly value that uniquely
       identifies a resource and which is used as a key for storing and
       retrieving data about the resource.  One way to generate a
       Resource-ID is by applying a mapping function to some other  
unique
       name (e.g., User Name or Service Name) for the resource.  The
       Resource-ID is used by the distributed database algorithm to
       determine the peer or peers that are responsible for storing the
       data for the overlay.

I suspect when people were thinking about this definition there were  
thinking that at a given location in the DHT, only one resource could  
be stored but it seems that a desirable feature (and not completely  
uncommon one) is to allow more than one resource to be stored at a  
location in the hash space. The term locus got selected because it  
was not a term already in use and we were trying to minimize  
confusion when writing the asp draft. I think that Resource-ID is  
probably a better term to use that locus but it would require a  
slight tweaking of the definition to make it clear that it refers to  
a unique location in the hash space not that it uniquely identifies a  
resource.