Subject: [P2Prg] RE: RG participation

From: Haim Rochberger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:17:41 +0300

Hi,

<My nickel (someone else used 2 cents already ;-)>

Since p2p for "open" content is already something well established
within the Internet subscribers, therefore maybe the direction that the
IETF should go for is to standard the future legal content distribution
using p2p.
I am talking about WGs like p2p-SIP and p2p-TV that can concentrate on a
standard why to exchange dynamic content that has QoS requirements, DRM,
availability, etc. 

Being legal - this will attract vendors to build unique devices that
will incorporate these protocols and standards.

</nickel>
yours,
 
Haim Rochberger
System Architect 
PeerApp LTD. ( www.peerapp.com )
Work Mobile:   054-2189142
Private Mobile: 054-4970504
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:54 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: P2prg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 9

Send P2prg mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of P2prg digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. RG participation. (Samrat Bhattacharjee)
   2. RE: RG participation. ([email-masked])
   3. RE: RG participation. ([email-masked])
   4. Re: RG participation. (Bill Yeager)
   5. RE: RG participation. (Henry Sinnreich)
   6. Re: RG participation. (Bill Yeager)
   7. RE: RG participation. (Roy, Radhika R.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:17:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Samrat Bhattacharjee <[email-masked]>
Subject: [P2Prg] RG participation.
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hello...

Our research group has been dormant for some time now, and the IRTF
chair (cc'ed) has enquired if it makes sense to continue the P2P-RG.  
It is clear that all who are members here are working on their own P2P
research; however, the RG has not (yet) been quite the forum for
exchanging ideas that we had initially hoped.  This is not to take
away from the work that the RG has already produced, however, lately,
there does not seem to be much activity, and this is of concern.

  Bottom line: Should we still keep this RG open?  If you have a
  strong opinion one way or another, please drop us a line.

Note that silence implies that we recommend to the IRTF that the RG be
shut down, so if you are in favor of continuing this group, please
include some ideas on how to generate more research activity.

Thanks.

Bill and Bobby

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:36:29 +0100
From: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [P2Prg] RG participation.
To: <[email-masked]>,	<[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Message-ID:
	
<[email-masked].
net>
	
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

In the spirit of wild speculation, and at risk of starting a debate, I
wonder if the nature of the P2P domain e.g. 

edge deployment
your app talking to your app
built on workarounds and what can be prototyped rapidly
bypassing agreement from carriers or industrial bodies

... underlies the silence of this particular research group. 

That doesn't mean there isn't research to be done, but it's not clear
what in mainstream P2P development would require something like
'standardization' which is historically the strength of IETF activity.

Cefn
http://cefn.com
http://labs.bt.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Samrat Bhattacharjee [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tue 9/26/2006 6:17 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [P2Prg] RG participation.

Hello...

Our research group has been dormant for some time now, and the IRTF
chair (cc'ed) has enquired if it makes sense to continue the P2P-RG.  
It is clear that all who are members here are working on their own P2P
research; however, the RG has not (yet) been quite the forum for
exchanging ideas that we had initially hoped.  This is not to take
away from the work that the RG has already produced, however, lately,
there does not seem to be much activity, and this is of concern.

  Bottom line: Should we still keep this RG open?  If you have a
  strong opinion one way or another, please drop us a line.

Note that silence implies that we recommend to the IRTF that the RG be
shut down, so if you are in favor of continuing this group, please
include some ideas on how to generate more research activity.

Thanks.

Bill and Bobby

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:53:25 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [P2Prg] RG participation.
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Message-ID:
	
<[email-masked]
cureserver.net>
	
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII

If I may add my 2 cents (after witnessing new testers/users' behaviors
as well as realizing the deficiencies in my Maazios software),
     1. I wish the connectivity hurdle to implement by p2p developers
and the configurations/adjustments needed to be done by p2p end users
would be easier.
     2. Nice to have - IETF standardized handshake process and
communication protocol structures for p2p software (instead of each
developer creating their own flavor).  The app talking to app is not a
problem if there's a standard outer shell/container to put app data in.
     3. The rapid prototyping is not a real hurdle; the trick is to get
testers/users to leave the p2p software running long enough to see the
problems and issues that crop up; in contrast, many websites/servers are
"active" for very long periods of time.

     4. ISPs/Carriers who block or degrade p2p traffic - if they do
this, they might as well do this to all internet traffic (ex. even from
large websites); strangely, I do wonder why they do not move away from
the all you can eat buffet pricing model (where a small percentage of
the users probably use up >80% of the network capacity) to the model
used by web hosters (ex. godaddy $29 per 0.5TB of data bandwidth) who
treat bandwidth like water - exceed a certain amount, you pay more.
     5. Bad consumer class routers and firewall software - I've
experienced routers that pretend to do portforwarding and firewalls
still blocking when told not to - not entirely sure whether these are
done intentionally or just poor quality in implementation.

The research papers presented at those p2p conferences are quite
interesting and insightful - but until a nice p2p foundation layer is
put together and deployed to end users, it will continue to be difficult
for p2p research and app development.

Tai Yu
www.maazios.com

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [P2Prg] RG participation.
> From: [email-masked]
> Date: Tue, September 26, 2006 11:36 am
> To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 
> In the spirit of wild speculation, and at risk of starting a debate, I
wonder if the nature of the P2P domain e.g. 
> 
> edge deployment
> your app talking to your app
> built on workarounds and what can be prototyped rapidly
> bypassing agreement from carriers or industrial bodies
> 
> ... underlies the silence of this particular research group. 
> 
> That doesn't mean there isn't research to be done, but it's not clear
what in mainstream P2P development would require something like
'standardization' which is historically the strength of IETF activity.
> 
> Cefn
> http://cefn.com
> http://labs.bt.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samrat Bhattacharjee [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tue 9/26/2006 6:17 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [P2Prg] RG participation.
>  
> 
> Hello...
> 
> Our research group has been dormant for some time now, and the IRTF
> chair (cc'ed) has enquired if it makes sense to continue the P2P-RG.  
> It is clear that all who are members here are working on their own P2P
> research; however, the RG has not (yet) been quite the forum for
> exchanging ideas that we had initially hoped.  This is not to take
> away from the work that the RG has already produced, however, lately,
> there does not seem to be much activity, and this is of concern.
> 
>   Bottom line: Should we still keep this RG open?  If you have a
>   strong opinion one way or another, please drop us a line.
> 
> Note that silence implies that we recommend to the IRTF that the RG be
> shut down, so if you are in favor of continuing this group, please
> include some ideas on how to generate more research activity.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Bill and Bobby
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> P2prg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> P2prg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:59:20 -0700
From: Bill Yeager <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [P2Prg] RG participation.
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

This group grew out the the desire of the IETF to standardize P2P. In  
order to do so it is felt we must first understand what should be  
standardized. One of our charter goals is to recommend to the IETF  
what should be standardized given our discussions and research.

Bill

On Sep 26, 2006, at 11:36 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> That doesn't mean there isn't research to be done, but it's not  
> clear what in mainstream P2P development would require something  
> like 'standardization' which is historically the strength of IETF  
> activity.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/p2prg/attachments/20060926/1d47a26d/attac
hment.html

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:36:28 -0700
From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [P2Prg] RG participation.
To: "Samrat Bhattacharjee" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Message-ID:
	<[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

> IRTF chair (cc'ed) has enquired if it makes sense to continue the
P2P-RG

This seems strange, since P2P traffic dominates the Internet. 
It appears the IETF has not only lost control over "its network", but
now the IRTF is not even interested to help with standards
recommendations for what constitutes most of the Internet traffic.

In the area in which I am interested (SIP), P2P Skype is also the
dominant VoIP provider by orders of magnitude.

The IRTF must definitely provide actionable input to the IETF on P2P
standards IMHO.

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Samrat Bhattacharjee [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:18 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [P2Prg] RG participation.

Hello...

Our research group has been dormant for some time now, and the IRTF
chair (cc'ed) has enquired if it makes sense to continue the P2P-RG.  
It is clear that all who are members here are working on their own P2P
research; however, the RG has not (yet) been quite the forum for
exchanging ideas that we had initially hoped.  This is not to take
away from the work that the RG has already produced, however, lately,
there does not seem to be much activity, and this is of concern.

  Bottom line: Should we still keep this RG open?  If you have a
  strong opinion one way or another, please drop us a line.

Note that silence implies that we recommend to the IRTF that the RG be
shut down, so if you are in favor of continuing this group, please
include some ideas on how to generate more research activity.

Thanks.

Bill and Bobby

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:41:19 -0700
From: Bill Yeager <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [P2Prg] RG participation.
To: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Samrat Bhattacharjee <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi Henry,

On Sep 26, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Henry Sinnreich wrote:

> now the IRTF is not even interested to help with standards
> recommendations for what constitutes most of the Internet traffic.

Not quite what we meant. We'd really like to contribute to those  
standards but there is no activity in our group and hasn't been a  
great deal for several months.

Our major point is to stimulate some discussion and research towards  
those standards you mention. If that happens as a result of this  
query, then this is of course the best possible outcome.

Thanks for your note,

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/p2prg/attachments/20060926/e89e6bfe/attac
hment.html

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:53:50 -0400
From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [P2Prg] RG participation.
To: "Bill Yeager" <[email-masked]>, "Henry Sinnreich"
	<[email-masked]>
Cc: Samrat Bhattacharjee <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Message-ID:
	
<[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Bill:

Like Henry, I also like to see that you recommend some actions for
standardization in P2P. At best, one can try to list the things that
they think to be standardized in the IETF as many researchers have done
many analysis so far what the people like us who are more towards from
the implementation side cannot do so easily.

For example, p2p-SIP WG is about to be formed. Most of the folks got the
ideas of p2p from this group while Skype and others provided impetus for
commercial implementations. That has been the case behind forming the
p2p-SIP WG.

However, the topics of P2P standardization may go far beyond p2p-SIP.

As researchers, P2Prg WG may not have enough incentive for
standardization, although I think there are, but it would be helpful to
provide some guidance, at least keeping p2p-SIP like things in view what
has been happening in the IETF, for standardization from pure P2P point
of view. 

It will surely stimulate some technical discussions even for matured
research towards practical, if not commercial, implementations instead
of being lost in silence.

Best regards,

Radhika

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Bill Yeager
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:41 PM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: Samrat Bhattacharjee; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [P2Prg] RG participation.

Hi Henry,

On Sep 26, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Henry Sinnreich wrote:

now the IRTF is not even interested to help with standards

recommendations for what constitutes most of the Internet traffic.

Not quite what we meant. We'd really like to contribute to those
standards but there is no activity in our group and hasn't been a great
deal for several months. 

Our major point is to stimulate some discussion and research towards
those standards you mention. If that happens as a result of this query,
then this is of course the best possible outcome.

Thanks for your note,

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/p2prg/attachments/20060926/e41f142a/attac
hment.html

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg

End of P2prg Digest, Vol 27, Issue 9
************************************

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:55:53 +0100

Haim, 

Although I think you're right that in the minds of many influential
commercial decision makers, P2P is primarily about (il)legal content
distribution, I think it would be a shame to divert technical attention
from the underlying requirements of P2P more generally.

As I understand P2P, it is a kind of application deployment which
incorporates users' resources into the dynamic processes of the
application infrastructure. Where conventional approaches make certain
assumptions about the resources making up the infrastructure (e.g.
assumptions about direct addressability, uptime, hierarchy) the P2P
application designer cannot. This has created the need for networked
algorithms (procedures with multiple points of execution) which overcome
the limitations which conventional approaches would face. 

The nature of the task carried out by this infrastructure can be quite
diverse - incorporating search, parallel task processing (computation or
distribution), collaborative tools. Many client resources, human
presence, desktop data, can often be incorporated into the task in ways
which make them indivisible from the application itself(e.g. Cloudmark
psam filtering, IM/Avcomms). 

Overall, a small subset of P2P applications relate to distributing
licensed content under QoS constraints (whether freely licensed or not).
Additionally, I find it hard to establish any aspect of P2P management
in terms of DRM, availability, QoS, which wouldn't be directly
transferable to a non-P2P deployment, and very few which would typically
be 'network visible'. Again I don't think this means there's no work to
be done, it's just the question of whether it's P2P IETF RG work.

There's no arguing with the point that the volume of traffic is
overwhelmingly content distribution. To me this says more about the
network load characteristics of content distribution applications per
se. It also indicates the first tranche of P2P apps which have seen mass
comprehension by the public. However, when we think of the 'packet
voltage' (value per byte) we may be looking at a very dilute resource
compared to other apps like instant messaging, where a few bytes count
for a great deal to those engaged in the transaction. This suggest to me
that volume shouldn't be the defining factor for the importance of a
given application class.

I suppose the question is should we consider the diversity of the
underlying field, and hence its more general requirements first, or
should we go for the hot buttons of industry first? These are probably
both valid answers depending what you're trying to achieve.

Also here's a list of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_currencies
which may become useful in the future if this debate continues and we
use up all the real ones :)

Cefn
http://cefn.com

<nickel author="Haim Rochberger [[email-masked]]" content="My nickel
(someone else used 2 cents already ;-)">

Since p2p for "open" content is already something well established
within the Internet subscribers, therefore maybe the direction that the
IETF should go for is to standard the future legal content distribution
using p2p. I am talking about WGs like p2p-SIP and p2p-TV that can
concentrate on a standard why to exchange dynamic content that has QoS
requirements, DRM, availability, etc. 

</nickel>

---

From: Bill Yeager <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:07:07 -0700

While QoS is an important and difficult area of research which our  
group can address, neither the IETF nor the IRTF get involved with  
issues such as DRM. This is legal territory and something we avoid.  
It's in the bylaws somewhere.

Your points are excellent.

Bill