Subject: [P2Prg] SIP.

From: "M. Ranganathan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:39:17 -0500

Hello!

SIP has been around for some time and is considered by some to  be the 
defacto peer to peer signaling protocol for a variety of different 
applications.  What separates P2P systems as being contemplated here and 
SIP from a protocol point of view? My opinion is that it is merely a 
matter of  what level you view the system.  I have a hypothesis that one 
could build virtually all features of a higher level peer to peer system 
being conon top of SIP. If this is true then for portability, should we 
consider defining P2P protocols in terms of SIP extensions? Just seeking 
an opinion.

Ranga.

-- 
M. Ranganathan 

Advanced Networking Technologies Divsion,
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8920, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. 

tel:301 975 3664 , fax:301 590 0932 , http://www.antd.nist.gov/~mranga

Advanced Networking Technologies For the People! 

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg

---

From: "Paul Francis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:54:47 -0500

With the caveat that someone would have to sit down and really think about
the details, I think SIP is ideal for P2P "signalling".  I've said as much
before on this mailing list.  SIP already has a namespace supported by the
DNS (URIs) and not dependent on IP, a way to signal peers even through NAT
boxes, a ton of product out there, and the SIP community is very serious
about security and other issues.

At a minimum, this group ought to take a very serious look at SIP.

PF

---

From: Bill Yeager <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:43:48 -0800

I think the Session Initiation Protocol belongs at the application 
level. It is not about

	1) Routing
	2) DHT content lookup
	3) Security is much more complicated than secure sessions
	4) Discovery - Which is really very dependent on the overlay network 
infrastructure
	5) Meta-Data

I personally am very much against overloading protocols like SIP. If a 
group wants to set up a session for IM, or a telephone conference, then 
sure, SIP has what is needed.

Bill

On Saturday, December 6, 2003, at 01:39 PM, M. Ranganathan wrote:

> I have a hypothesis that one could build virtually all features of a 
> higher level peer to peer system being conon top of SIP. If this is 
> true then for portability, should we consider defining P2P protocols 
> in terms of SIP extensions? Just seeking an opinion.
>

---

From: "Paul Francis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:03:36 -0500

You are right, SIP is not about all that stuff (routing etc.).  But SIP
seems useful at the point where peer A decides it wants to talk to peer B,
and needs some way to address B, contact B and tell it that it wants to
talk, tell B what it wants to talk about, and decide how to actually do the
talking.  In short, it aids in setting up a session between A and B.

PF