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

Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org> Mon, 09 October 2006 00:28 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWj0p-0004PG-B6; Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:28:55 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWj0n-0004Jg-KS; Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:28:53 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWj0m-0001t5-A3; Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:28:53 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2006 17:28:52 -0700
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k990SpeE008575; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:28:51 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k990SpW4026977; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:28:51 -0700
Received: from cisco.com ([10.21.114.225]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:28:50 -0700
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:28:24 -0700
From: Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org>
To: Aaron Falk <falk@ISI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [OFF-PATH-BOF] Fwd: [P2Prg] RG participation.
Message-ID: <20061009002824.GA4332@sbrim-wxp01>
References: <24CCCC428EFEA2469BF046DB3C7A8D2219A6AD@namail5.corp.adobe.com> <290F4125-9E15-4414-B194-90CCF00696B3@isi.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <290F4125-9E15-4414-B194-90CCF00696B3@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2006 00:28:50.0975 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4BAD2F0:01C6EB39]
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3.cisco.com; header.From=swb@employees.org; dkim=neutral
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: off-path-bof@ietf.org, Internet Steering Group <irsg@ISI.EDU>, p2prg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: off-path-bof@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "BOF: Path-decoupled Signaling for Data" <off-path-bof.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/off-path-bof>, <mailto:off-path-bof-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/off-path-bof>
List-Post: <mailto:off-path-bof@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:off-path-bof-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/off-path-bof>, <mailto:off-path-bof-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: off-path-bof-bounces@ietf.org

On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 02:28:58PM -0700, Aaron Falk allegedly wrote:
> OFFPATH/EMMERG folks-
> 
> 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:// 
> www.irtf.org/chairfiles/emmerg-charter-v5a.txt.

I don't think there's that much overlap in goal between P2P SIP and
EMERG, although they'll touch some of the same territory.  IMHO the
essence of P2P SIP is to free the peer discovery process from the Borg
(plus a couple of other things like support for anonymity and NAT
traversal).  All of the P2PRG work would support it directly.  OTOH it
seems that the implicit issue in EMERG is to *control* the discovery
process, and to make it work well when a lot of control exists,
assuming strong A&A.  

swb

_______________________________________________
OFF-PATH-BOF mailing list
OFF-PATH-BOF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/off-path-bof