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

"Paul Francis" <> Mon, 09 October 2006 12:38 UTC

Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWuP1-00005l-DP; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:38:39 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWuP0-00005d-1c; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:38:38 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWuOw-000879-2U; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:38:38 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 9 Oct 2006 08:38:33 -0400
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.
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 08:38:30 -0400
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <20061009002824.GA4332@sbrim-wxp01>
Thread-Topic: [OFF-PATH-BOF] Fwd: [P2Prg] RG participation.
Thread-Index: AcbrOehJfpYRs2VOR8iin5ipy7gg+gAZc07A
From: "Paul Francis" <>
To: "Scott W Brim" <>, "Aaron Falk" <falk@ISI.EDU>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2006 12:38:33.0617 (UTC) FILETIME=[D537D010:01C6EB9F]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
Cc:, Internet Steering Group <irsg@ISI.EDU>,
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: <>, <>

I agree with Scott...the two groups seem more complementary than overlapping.
As someone pointed out, P2PSIP could utilize whatever comes out of EMMERG.


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott W Brim [] 
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 8:28 PM
To: Aaron Falk
Cc:; Internet Steering Group;
Subject: Re: [OFF-PATH-BOF] Fwd: [P2Prg] RG participation.

On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 02:28:58PM -0700, Aaron Falk allegedly wrote:
> 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:// 

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.  


OFF-PATH-BOF mailing list

OFF-PATH-BOF mailing list