Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] architecture presentation and terminology

From: "Bruce Lowekamp" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:34:10 -0500

Leading up to and at the p2psip session in Minneapolis, there have
been no proposals for a better terminology than what is in the new
architecture figure in the draft.  Minor revisions have been proposed
to label the layers "interface" rather than API and at least including
a note that the "Topology plugin" is in its current location due to
drawing convenience if the drawing can't be changed to place it above
the message transport component.  Otherwise, consensus in the room was
to adopt the new architecture figure with associated terminology.

Unless there is consensus on list around a different
architecture/terminology, I will make the changes to the draft.

Bruce

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Bruce Lowekamp <[email-masked]> wrote:
> There were a lot of questions, many of them from Alan, about reload's
> previous architecture presentation.  The most recent revision to
> reload introduced a new architecture model presented together with the
> older model.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-base-00#section-1.2
>
> The new model, referred to as the "overlay perspective" tries to more
> clearly specify the roles of the various layer and establishes a very
> clear parallel between the functionality of the overlay layers and the
> general internet model.  In a lot of ways, this model is much clearer
> than the old one.  It does have some drawbacks along the lines of
> saying that TCP/TLS is an Overlay Link Protocol, which is a bit
> counterintuitive to those of us used to thinking of TCP as a transport
> protocol, but Overlay Link is more accurate for its purpose in reload.
>
> We don't want to present two different architectures.  If we adopt the
> new one, terminology in the remainder of the draft will be altered to
> reflect the new model.  We would really appreciate comments on whether
> the new model makes (or would make if the rest of the document is
> updated to reflect it) the presentation clearer.
>
> Henning has pointed out that "API" is probably wrong in the new figure
> and those should simply be layered "Interface".
>
> Bruce
>
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip