Subject: [P2Prg] RG participation.

From: Samrat Bhattacharjee <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:17:52 -0400 (EDT)

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

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:36:29 +0100

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...

Thanks.

Bill and Bobby

---

From: Bill Yeager <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:59:20 -0700

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.

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:36:28 -0700

> 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...

Thanks.

Bill and Bobby

---

From: Bill Yeager <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:41:19 -0700

Hi Henry,

> 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

---

From: "Roy, Radhika R." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:53:50 -0400

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,

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

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:17:42 -0700

I'd like to make it clear that IRTF Research Groups, like the Peer-to- 
Peer Research Group, do not "do" standardization.  It is the IETF  
that standardizes protocols.  The IETF is a separate, adjacent body  
to the IRTF.  Nevertheless, IRTF RGs may play an important role in  
this process by building a common understanding of the problem and  
solution space and collaborating on that which is is not yet mature  
enough for standardization.

For example, the P2Prg charter [1] suggests the RG will develop work  
on developing a common conceptual model of the problem and solution  
space for P2P protocols and applications.  Further, it states the  
group could work on "exploring interfaces to IETF protocols to  
realize the models; and offering input to the IETF as a starting  
place for possible groups standardizing new protocols that are useful  
in building P2P applications."

For any of this to happen in this RG, however, the group needs to  
develop and pursue an agenda.  (This may require modifying the  
charter, a clear possibility if there is energy behind a proposal.)   
It requires some commitment by individuals to participate.  This  
isn't happening in the P2Prg now, but it could.  Bobby sent a note  
inviting folks to step up to define and pursue work in this  
collaborative environment.  If no one steps forward now, no work will  
happen and the group should be closed.

--Aaron Falk
   IRTF Chair

[1] http://www.irtf.org/p2prg

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:54:53 +0100

At Tuesday 26/09/2006 16:17 -0700, Aaron Falk wrote:
>I'd like to make it clear that IRTF Research Groups, like the 
>Peer-to- Peer Research Group, do not "do" standardization.  It is the IETF
>that standardizes protocols.

The IESG, surely. The IETF doesn't have final say.

L.

---

From: Luca Caviglione <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:19:49 +0200

(my 2 euro-cents...)

Hi Samrat and I all,

as said, the group grew out to the desire of the IETF to standardize  
p2p.

But let me share with you this consideration about P2P-SIP.

People of P2P-SIP started to develop roughly a “Face Dancer” of Skype  
and employing a DHT-based architecture (like Chord, Kad).  However,   
P2P-SIP guys are very wise: they selected two excellent pieces for  
their puzzle.

Then the problem with p2p (and probably of p2prg) is that everyone  
already has an enormous technology pool for developing p2p stuff:  
content delivery (BitTorrent), look-up (Kad), …. Consequently, I  
agree with Henry, but I would like to offer another perspective. IETF  
wants to regain control of “its network”, but instead of using the  
“usual path” (e.g., IRTF to feed IEFT), it inspects directly the apps  
populating “its network”.

Based upon the previous consideration, the “silence” of p2prg could  
be explainable. It appears to me that P2PRG stopped due to the lack  
of traction from the IETF, even if p2prg is supposed to have its own  
engine.

I would like to have a p2prg more “stand-alone”. Let’s p2prg going  
ahead (maybe after adjusting the charter) and as side effect produces  
standardization inputs for IETF. P2P needs more research and  
understanding (IMHO), and so p2prg should survive.

Best Regards,
Luca

> include some ideas on how to generate more research activity.

-----------------------------------------
Ing. Luca Caviglione, PhD
CNIT - Genoa Research Unit
Via Opera Pia 13
16145, Genova
Tel. +39 010 3532202
-----------------------------------------

---

From: Chaz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:21:25 -0400

I think there are multiple problems in the P2P space only one of which
is to have a unified p2p system. Right now we have XMPP and SIMPLE both
vying for world dominance, and I believe we need one. I am certain if we
put our heads together we can come up with one standard (or at least
make the two inter -operate).
 
My own work is in the area of massively scalable p2p networks and
extending them to function outside of just simple message exchanges. As
such I solve many problems that I am certain others have as well, such
as overlay networks. Since many of the things I am working on involve
RPC (or RPC-like) semantics, I find myself wondering about how to extend
RPC to work in the multicast environment.

I am certain there are quite a few problems that need to be solved in
the p2p space. I think we just need to start talking about them.

Peace,
Chaz