Subject: [P2PSIP] Acitve/Passive vs Contributing/Non-contributing

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:42:10 -0500

It's been suggested we might classify the peers that contribute  
resources as "contributing peers", instead of "active peers", and the  
ones that don't as "non-contributing peers", rather than "passive  
peers."

On further reflection, I think I like this nomenclature better than  
the previous proposal.

And it avoids a vocabulary conflict with a soon-to-be published draft  
that somebody else brought to my attention.

So does this sound okay to you folks for now?

--
Dean

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

---

From: "Bill Mccormick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:01:28 -0400

My 2 cents.   I don't like it.

In every DHT I've studied (Chord, Pastry and Kademlia) peers have to
participate in the DHT.   This means they have an overlay address in
the DHT (this is usually the digest of the node's IP address) and they
are routable in the DHT.

Any node in the DHT with an overlay address has to be able to store
information.   Remember the rule for finding data in the DHT - the
data is stored on the node(s) whose overlay address is closed to the
digest of the key of the data.

If there are non-contributing peers, how do you find data that's
supposed to be stored on those peers?

I think you're either a peer or you're not.    If you're not a peer,
you don't store data, and you don't participate in the DHT routing
protocols.   If you are a peer, then you store data and you are part
of routing through the DHT.

-- 
Bill McCormick

---

From: Salman Abdul Baset <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:37:51 -0400 (EDT)

My concern is that can we differentiate types of peers when the resource 
definition is itself vague? Isn't it the case that a peer which *only* 
performs routing contributes some of its resources towards routing and 
overlay maintenance?

Perhaps, you want to classify peers offering services in addition to 
routing and maintenance as contributing peers. The term 'contributing 
peer' is vague because what really a node is looking for is a peer 
offering a certain service such as storage or NAT traversal.

-salman

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Dean Willis wrote:

>
> It's been suggested we might classify the peers that contribute resources as 
> "contributing peers", instead of "active peers", and the ones that don't as 
> "non-contributing peers", rather than "passive peers."
>
> On further reflection, I think I like this nomenclature better than the 
> previous proposal.
>
> And it avoids a vocabulary conflict with a soon-to-be published draft that 
> somebody else brought to my attention.
>

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:57:20 -0400

I want to agree with Bill here. I think if it doesn't route and
doesn't have an ID, it just isn't a peer.

Personally, I'd prefer we left the concepts draft the way it was. I
don't see the need to change clients to "non-participating peers", and
really think it is just going to add confusion.

David

-- 
David A. Bryan
[email-masked]
+1.757.565.0101 x101
+1.757.565.0088 (fax)
www.SIPeerior.com

---

From: JiangXingFeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:19:04 +0800

Hi, David:
Yes, I agree with David that a Peer must provide routing and storage
service, otherwise it will break the existing DHT algorithms. 

--
Jiang XingFeng
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David A. Bryan [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 4:57 AM
> To: Salman Abdul Baset
> Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Acitve/Passive vs Contributing/Non-contributing
> 
resources as
> > > On further reflection, I think I like this nomenclature better than
the
> > > And it avoids a vocabulary conflict with a soon-to-be published draft
that