RE: [OFF-PATH-BOF] Fwd: [P2Prg] RG participation.

"Henry Sinnreich" <> Sun, 08 October 2006 22:18 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWgyi-0002lz-PO; Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:18:36 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWgyh-0002lX-Id; Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:18:35 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWgxF-0007s6-KB; Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:17:13 -0400
Received: from source ([]) by ([]) with SMTP; Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:14:28 PDT
Received: from ([]) by (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k98MC6nN013062; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k98MEG4Z017724; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:14:16 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [OFF-PATH-BOF] Fwd: [P2Prg] RG participation.
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:11:41 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [OFF-PATH-BOF] Fwd: [P2Prg] RG participation.
Thread-Index: AcbrINT7suUL5+edTS65w9QuTzyAPwABIvog
From: "Henry Sinnreich" <>
To: "Aaron Falk" <falk@ISI.EDU>, <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2006 22:14:16.0912 (UTC) FILETIME=[18369500:01C6EB27]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 848ed35f2a4fc0638fa89629cb640f48
Cc: Eunsoo Shim <>, Internet Steering Group <irsg@ISI.EDU>, Dean Willis <>,, Alan Johnston <>, "Henning G. Schulzrinne" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "BOF: Path-decoupled Signaling for Data" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Thanks Aaron!

>re-scope the P2PRG to be tied to a (proposed) IETF P2P-SIP working

The background and I-Ds for the P2P SIP work on the IETF can be found at 

I have taken the liberty to copy some folks preparing the way to charter
the P2P SIP WK after the BOF in San Diego.

Thanks again, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Falk [mailto:falk@ISI.EDU] 
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 4:29 PM
Cc: Internet Steering Group;
Subject: [OFF-PATH-BOF] Fwd: [P2Prg] RG participation.


See the proposal below to re-scope the P2PRG to be tied to a  
(proposed) IETF P2P-SIP working group.  Are there any issues of  
overlap or conflict the (proposed) IRTF EMMERG RG?  It's OK for RGs  
to have overlapping scope but it's not good to unnecessarily fracture  
the community.

P2PRG-  The current draft EMMERG charter can be found here: http://


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Henry Sinnreich" <>
> Date: October 2, 2006 2:31:01 PM PDT
> To: "John Buford" <>om>, "Samrat  
> Bhattacharjee" <>du>, <>rg>,  
> <>
> Subject: RE: [P2Prg] RG participation.
> John Buford writes:
>> the most likely scenario to re-activate it would be to couple it
>> directly to P2P-SIP, which is having its second BOF soon (San Diego
> IETF).
> I believe this is a very constructive proposal. Since new P2P  
> protocols
> are still emerging and their research is out of scope for the proposed
> P2P SIP WG, the P2P RG could provide a very effective support by  
> taking
> on the research topics that can support P2P SIP.
> Examples of topics of interest include such as:
> - Neighbor node discovery based on latency,
> - Overlays for range queries, for example searching by last name,
> - Overlays for searching by attribute (location, business, etc.),
> - Addressing the security vulnerabilities on overlays for P2P SIP,
> - Hierarchical overlays,
> - etc.,
> We can almost promise there will be no shortage of challenges :-)
> Thanks, Henry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Buford []
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 12:45 PM
> To: Samrat Bhattacharjee;;
> Subject: RE: [P2Prg] RG participation.
> Active RGs seem to have one or more
> of the following characteristics:
> 1. the RG is coupled to a specific WG (e.g. HIP)
> 2. the work is closely related to the historical
>    activity of the IETF so that there is a critical
>    mass of interested researchers already in the IETF
>    to participate
> 3. the research topic hasn't reached a scale where
>    it has its own conference forums outside IETF
> 4. the chair(s) own/drive/energize the RG activities
>    to a large extent
> 5. there is a sizeable commercial motivation for
>    research & subsequent standardization of a network
>    protocol problem space
> Regarding P2P as an RG:
> 1. there is no coupling yet, possibly P2P-SIP
>    might be in the future, and P2P-SIP parties made
>    requests at Dallas P2PRG meeting for support
> 2. P2P is an area which has no standardization
>    history in IETF to draw from
> 3. P2P has many conferences, and most researchers
>    seem to prefer the peer-review process, recognition and
>    collaboration in those venues
> 4. this might succeed, but doesn't seem to be a preferred
>    model.  the extended efforts of Bill & Bobby should
>    be noted and are certainly appreciated by many.
> 5. most p2p systems have been closed protocols
>    which have succeeeded without standardization and
>    related research.
> In the long run it seems that something like P2PRG
> will be needed and important for the IETF.
> In the near term, the most likely scenario to re-activate
> it would be to couple it directly to P2P-SIP, which is having
> its second BOF soon.  The best time to work that
> out would be if and after its charter is approved.
> The general idea would be 1) to scope the RG
> charter so that it addresses specific open issues
> that are outside of the WG charter, (e.g, decentralized
> security)
> 2) survey the P2P-SIP WG and P2P RG to see how many people
> would actively work on IDs for these open issues.
> 3) have some type of active cross-over coordination between
> RG and WG, as in HIP RG/WG, and one or more "owner"
> individuals who want to drive the RG work.
> Regarding the P2PRG service discovery subgroup I hope
> to continue that work if the RG continues.
> John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samrat Bhattacharjee []
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:18 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> 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

OFF-PATH-BOF mailing list

OFF-PATH-BOF mailing list