[grobj] Referrals
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 21 April 2010 21:49 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: grobj@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grobj@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29C33A69D9 for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.073
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.074, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2tDRlDTDk2Bi for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27ABB3A6977 for <grobj@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwj2 with SMTP id 2so5535920pwj.31 for <grobj@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=f76hsdELTxuSZOMMRym9kNsBhBZ4dQaQchiMJbHFIEU=; b=g2x/D8qq2Q/MYXcTX7GOhxsyAOrD4M7zZKgA9jo4MD52ne7EVqJnH5py/Lm9AxMaK9 uXyCzdf9KXP2Nt9F16Tn1BV5Qdzn6KtDFSkBCulTmv8zJ0mYwAgKORzHiCy8R5L4YTqa 5Qil8O5kqVnhMRKo09W/oOSwddkAK+ciC/Hgk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=VYtRK/a2Csfl/O1W2A8pLzKfiVzfb4EeGu0aqCnDgsua9xDHmRklYl/N4z6vP2k1tm ZJOVAGmEDoj0GZ+N82rOMDOWU5oMIs4ISEkZQnDQASDrytu1ShZPsNUUc3Ue25DlJ91E 22GM/9kNYELoFsysR1zXjg8rpxVXuuwUpnZLA=
Received: by 10.142.7.13 with SMTP id 13mr4123617wfg.122.1271886531223; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v41sm330566wfh.21.2010.04.21.14.48.49 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BCF72C0.6050004@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:48:48 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: grobj@ietf.org
References: <000801ca9ffd$1950d2f0$4e0c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <000801ca9ffd$1950d2f0$4e0c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [grobj] Referrals
X-BeenThere: grobj@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss Generic Referral Objects <grobj.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grobj>, <mailto:grobj-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grobj>
List-Post: <mailto:grobj@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grobj-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grobj>, <mailto:grobj-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:49:08 -0000
Hi everybody, This list has been pretty quiet. However, there is an intention to move forward before IETF 78. It seems pretty clear that we need a very precise problem statement to act as the basis for an agreed requirements analysis. So, this is a renewed call for comments on the problem statement aspect of draft-carpenter-grobj-reqts-00. Then we can try to distil a separate problem statement draft out of it. The previous discussion is of course archived at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grobj/current/maillist.html Please ask anyone you think might be interested to join this list. Brian Carpenter On 2010-01-28 22:34, Sheng Jiang wrote: > FYI, there were some private discussion regarding to the new GROBJ problem > statement draft. Resend it to the grobj maillist with permission. Wish to > light wider discussion. > > There are 7 emails in this thread. This is 7th out of 7. > > Regards, > > Sheng > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] >> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 7:30 AM >> To: 'Sheng Jiang' >> Cc: 'Simon Perreault'; 'Brian E Carpenter' >> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [grobj] Problem statement] >> >>> When I said "One Unified Format", I did not mean a single >> format. What >>> I mean is a Unified framework, which any applications can >> look at it >>> and at least understand this is useful for it or not. >> Ok. >> >>> It just likes that we draft a table. We define: first >> column is name, >>> second is age, third is professional, blabla. That is a >> unified table. >>> You fill it in different language, English, France, >> Chinese... oh, I >>> guess, we need to add a zero column before name - language (maybe >>> expressed in number). >>> >>> Then, the table is unified and reusable. It gets meanings among >>> different languages. The table can work when people speack >> different >>> languages. No need to redesign another or multiple tables for the >>> similar purpose. Otherwise, A, we may get multiple tables >> to make it >>> different to understand each other, B, the experience >> cannot be passed >>> among different languages, a new language or org may starts >> from zero >>> and consider every detail by itself. >>> >>>> We don't have many application "A" (e.g., XMPP) talking to >>>> application "B" (e.g., SIP) today. There's lots of reasons >>> for that. >>>> Incompatible referrals is only one reason -- and a small reason, >>>> really; referrals, to date, have been simple. Yet, there >> still is >>>> not a lot of application-A talking to application-B using >> referrals. >>>> So having a unique format, which is a natural for each >> application, >>>> is not harmful. >>> I agree what you said: applicants rarely talk to each other now. >>> However, this is not about APP-A talk to APP-B using GROBJ. >>> It is when >>> APP-B designs its traversal/referral function/protocol, it reuses >>> APP-A's traversal/referral experience. >> Sounds great. >> >>> That's the whole motivation of >>> GROBJ here: to avaid APP-B to start its own ICE design from >> zero. With >>> GROBJ, APP-B designers just fill a framework with their favorite >>> language and follow a set of rules, then things can work >> out for them. >>> They don't need to read and fully understand hundred pages of ICE >>> document. They can easily make their applications, client a >> of APP-B >>> and client b of APP-B, connect to each other directly. >> Ok. >> >> Thanks. >> -d >> >> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Sheng > > _______________________________________________ > grobj mailing list > grobj@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grobj >
- [grobj] FW: [Fwd: Re: Problem statement] - 7th ou… Sheng Jiang
- [grobj] Referrals Brian E Carpenter