RE: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?

[Zheng Hewen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Huang
 
    Your reply puzzled me.
    Our discussion focus is whether all peers in P2PSIP overlay must recognize SIP. You think that all peers must recognize
SIP messages, but I think that some peers may not recognize SIP messages, do I misunderstand?
    By the way, in detail, there are three modes compatible with the P2PSIP WG charter. As you said, the first is SIP over
P2P, P2P provides transport service such as tunneling SIP; the second is P2P over SIP, SIP is extended so that P2P is
embedded in SIP messages; the last is that P2P is independent of SIP and SIP is independent of P2P at the same time, P2P
only provides the service determining the correct destination for SIP requests to SIP terminals, it is the simplest and
clearest.
    I suggest that you might read these drafts as Marcin's advice.
   http://www.p2psip.org/drafts/draft-bryan-p2psip-requirements-00.txt
   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baset-p2psip-p2pp-00.txt
   http://www.p2psip.org/drafts/draft-jennings-p2psip-asp-00.txt 
 

  _____  

From: HUANG Ping B [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2007年7月12日 22:27
To: Zheng Hewen; Michal Giermasinski; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?


Hi Zheng and marcin
   I have never said that P2PSIP is IP or use SIP. as we know, there are two mode in P2PSIP, one is SIP over P2P and the
other is P2P over SIP.SIP is just in application layer and P2P or P2PSIP are more like transport layer. in SIP over P2P, SIP
is just one of the protocols interacting with P2P or P2PSIP overlay. in P2P over SIP, SIP is made some extension. I have
never said that P2PSIP peer protocol shall use SIP, SIP is over P2PSIP!
   And as I said, peers "SHOULD" not "SHALL" recognize SIP. maybe you "SHALL" read RFC2119

  _____  

From: Zheng Hewen [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:33 PM
To: HUANG Ping B; 'Michal Giermasinski'; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?


Hi,
 
   One supplement, FYI.
   In the future P2PSIP deployment, one device that can provide DHT service but not recognize SIP messages should be
admitted as one member/peer of P2PSIP overlay, we do not have to update the device to support SIP and then provide DHT
service, the cost introduced due to the update is unnecessary. 
 
 

  _____  

From: HUANG Ping B [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2007年7月12日 16:57
To: Zheng Hewen; Michal Giermasinski; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?


I have never said that P2PSIP is equal to SIP, P2PSIP is just an overlay as an alternative to the SIP discovery process of
RFC 3263, P2PSIP offers an alternative mechanism for determining the correct destination for SIP requests. SIP is session
layer protocol, P2PSIP is under SIP. of cause, is you use another protocol, P2PSIP may be called another name, such as
P2PXXX. Peers in P2PSIP overlay are responsible not just for location (done by P2PSIP protocol). Why we called P2PSIP as
"P2PSIP"?  this name means that there is a relationship between P2PSIP and SIP, maybe SIP over P2P or P2P over SIP. but any
way, SIP should be used. then Peers in P2PSIP overlay( not P2PXXX overlay) should recognize SIP message. Ok, you can say
that a tunnel protocol could be used to deliver SIP protocol, this is a choice, but not good choice. if a tunnel protocol is
used, then SIP has nothing with P2P overlay, this tunnel protocol could deliver any protocols besides SIP, then name
"P2PSIP" does not make sense.
when peers in P2PSIP overlay do not recognize SIP message, then let them out of overlay.

  _____  

From: Zheng Hewen [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 2:01 PM
To: HUANG Ping B; 'Michal Giermasinski'; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?


Hi,
 
  If I do not misunderstand, P2PSIP is not equal to SIP.
  Essentially in P2PSIP overlay, P2PSIP peers have nothing with SIP. Why must we bind SIP to P2PSIP peers? 
  
  Here is the description about P2PSIP peers in WG charter, FYI.
  "The work focuses on collections of nodes called "P2PSIP peers" and "P2PSIP clients". P2PSIP peers manifest a distributed
namespace in which overlay users are identified and provides mechanisms for locating users or resources within the P2PSIP
overlay. P2PSIP clients differ from P2PSIP peers primarily in that they do not store information in the overlay, but only
use it to locate users and resources. P2PSIP clients and peers use the resolution services of the peers as an alternative to
the SIP discovery process of RFC 3263. In this way, P2PSIP offers an alternative mechanism for determining the correct
destination for SIP requests. The working group's initial charter scope will be to produce protocols to enable this
alternate mechanism for RFC 3263 functionality."
 
  Nothing says that P2PSIP peers must support SIP or have anything with SIP.
  From the charter, functionality of P2PSIP peers is so clear and simple, why do we make it complicated? I think we can do
it simpler, SIP is SIP, P2PSIP peer is P2PSIP peer, let them be.
 

Zheng Hewen
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,LTD. huawei_logo 


Huihong Mansion
No.91 Baixia Road
NanJing, P.R.China
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
www.huawei.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which 
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the 
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial 
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by 
phone or email immediately and delete it!

 

  _____  

From: HUANG Ping B [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2007年7月12日 10:22
To: Zheng Hewen; Michal Giermasinski; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?


Hi all
    P2P is great topic, but P2PSIP is the subset or certain instance of P2P. when we discuss P2PSIP, we shall not involve
all nodes which could be peers in P2PSIP overlay. peers in P2PSIP overlay are not equal to peers in P2P overlay. when we
discuss IMS, although legacy equipments does not support SIP, but some AGWs do translation or agent for those equipments.
then, when we discuss P2PSIP, shall we involve all peers who know SIP or not in P2PSIP overlay? I think P2P is not equal to
P2PSIP, and vice versa. and I think that Peers in P2PSIP overlay should have some common base functionalitis such as SIP
recognition. I think we shall make P2PSIP more simple but not more complex.

  _____  

From: Zheng Hewen [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:34 AM
To: 'Michal Giermasinski'; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?


Hi,
 
    Please let me describe the case in detail.
    In the case, all clients support SIP, but some peers in the overlay network do not support SIP and some support SIP. For
those peers which do not support SIP, such as some PCs, they can provide all required DHT services, but there is only a pity
that they can not recognize any SIP message, maybe they think that the capability is unnecessary. In this case, some client
protocol is desirable. Certainly this protocol may be the subset of general Peer Protocol if we regard those clients as Lame
Peers and regard those peers as Pure Peers who only provide required DHT services.
    IMHO, this case does not care those clients not supporting SIP.
 
Zheng Hewen
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,LTD. huawei_logo 


Huihong Mansion
No.91 Baixia Road
NanJing, P.R.China
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
www.huawei.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which 
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the 
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial 
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by 
phone or email immediately and delete it!

 

  _____  

From: Michal Giermasinski [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2007年7月12日 5:31
To: Zheng Hewen; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?


Hi!
 
Well, in my oppinion it is not a good for creating a new protocol. If a client application is not able to use SIP protocol
that is well known for years it obviously will not be able to use a new one that will be designed especially for cooperation
with p2psip overlay. 
 
If we follow this understanding we can assume that the better thing is to use SIP on this interface (between client
outstanding the overlay and the peer in the overlay). The only issue is to create a proxy-like peer that will be able to
help client to get benefits of the overlay. 
 
What we should consider is how to filter the traffic unwanted by regular client that do not want to take part in the routing
decision.
 
best regards
Michal Giermasinski


 
2007/7/11, Zheng Hewen <[e-mail]>: 

Hi,

   A client protocol will be useful when some peers in the overlay do not support SIP, those peers are only responsible to 
provide distributed storage, location and transport services for information about SIP, but those peers do not recognize any
SIP messages at all.
  In this case, how to maintain the relation between clients (UA) and the hosting peer(s)? One client protocol is desirable 
at this time.


Zheng Hewen
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,LTD.  huawei_logo


Huihong Mansion
No.91 Baixia Road
NanJing, P.R.China
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
www.huawei.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial 
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it! 


-----Original Message-----
From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 2007?6?26? 1:39
To: Dean Willis; David A. Bryan
Cc: Avshalom Houri; P2PSIP Mailing List; Philip Matthews 
Subject: [P2PSIP] do we need a client protocol?

Folks,

Given the length of the discussion on "do we need a client protocol?"
let me repeat the simple imperatives for the client:

- Limited battery in mobile devices, and 

- Other uses besides SIP. Business planning folks may not care about the WG charter, but about the return on the investment.

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Willis [mailto:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:23 PM
To: David A. Bryan
Cc: Avshalom Houri; P2PSIP Mailing List; Philip Matthews
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts document: proposal for active/passive peerterminology 

David A. Bryan wrote:
> If I understand this right, not sure I like it. Do these
"non-contributing
> peer" (I *do* like contributing better than active/passive) entities
have a
> Peer-ID? In otherwords, are they part of the overlay at all? If so, 
for
> most
> DHTs, how do we allow you to be in the overlay and not store resources
(not
> typical for most current DHT algorithms)

Well, that certainly depends on the DHT algorithm involved. It certainly seems that a peer that moves between contributing 
and non-contributing might HAVE a peer ID, but whether it chooses to insert itself into the DHT "right now" might determine
whether it is contributing "right now"
or not.

> My concern all along has been that I don't understand why something is 
> a peer if it isn't doing anything other than talking to someone and
> making requests, hence why I supported client in the first place.
>  I fail to see how something that isn't contributing anything, and 
> instead talks to a peer to get resources, is in any way a peer. It
> seems completely not in keeping with the idea of P2P. I also worry it
> is likely to be very confusing since we've been using the other 
> terminology for over a year now. Just looks like a souce of confusion.

A node might sometimes have a high-bandwidth connection and wish to contribute resources, and sometimes not have a
high-bandwidth connection and therefore not wish to offer resources. Does this modality make it two different nodes? 

> If we do go this way, there is one subtle point. If I join the overlay
but
> don't happen to offer any services (other than maybe
storage...depending on
> how we definie it, that might or might not be mandatory), would I be 
> contributing? If joining the overlay (in the sense that we have a
PeerID
> and
> we route traffic) doesn't require me to store, I could offer no
services

That's "offer no other services", since routing is itself a service. 

> and
> still be a peer. How do we distinguish between this case and a
> "non-contributing peer" who isn't even part of the overlay (i.e., no
> Peer-ID)

I think there's a range of "contributing" in play. For most DHT models, a minimally contributing node will route a request 
it receives. It might ask nicely (perhaps a q-value mechanism) to not have to route requests, but would probably
mathematically still have to route something it gets.

I think we distinguish based on the service advertisements from the peer. 

> If we are so opposed to client for confusion with SIP UAs, lets pick a
new
> name, but why some flavor of peer when it does nothing remotely peer
like?

Because in 15 minutes it might roam onto a WiFi net and therefore change it service offering. 

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip  <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip> 

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip  <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip> 




_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip  <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip> 

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip