Re: [P2PSIP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-16.txt

["Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Haibin:

OK, it provides a direction how we can proceed with RELOAD extensions for
all other remaining functions that P2PSIP needs.

My guess is that RELOAD provides routing, security, and other
infrastructures that all the things that are needed no matter what
additional capabilities are needed. Per your suggestion, I think we can
proceed as follows:

1. Let us extend RELOAD like diagnostics for additional capabilities for
management of the P2PSIP application signaling application protocol. 

2. We may have to develop P2P-BFCP for conference floor control and see how
RELOAD that provide the basic infrastructure as stated above can be used for
this.

3. We may have to develop P2P-Media Channel Protocol for media
bridging/mixing and see how RELOAD can be used for this as stated in item 2.

4. Similarly, for others ...

Is this direction for the group?

BR/Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: Songhaibin (A) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 12:50 AM
To: Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US); [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-16.txt

I think in the early discussion in P2PSIP WG. SNMP were not recommended for
the management of p2p networks. Of course, you can extend RELOAD for more
management issues, just like what has been done for the diagnostics.

Best Regards!
-Haibin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 8:41 PM
> To: Songhaibin (A); [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-16.txt
> 
> Hi, Haibin and all members of this WG:
> 
> Let me clarify a little more on management works of MANET WG.
> 
> MANET WG has used the SNMP as the base management protocol and has
> developed
> MIBs for all of the MANET physical routing protocols that have
standardized.
> 
> In our P2PWG, we do have the same. That is, for example P2PSNMP protocol
> that is used as the base protocol for management of P2PSIP protocol.
> 
> So, if there is no anything like P2P-Management Protocol, what will do for
> management of the P2PSIP?
> 
> Under the umbrella of P2PSIP, we can produce P2P-IM, P2PSIP-Conferencing,
> P2P-Binary Floor Control Protocol, P2P-Media Mixing/Bridging Protocol,
> P2P-Other protocols that are needed for P2PSIP.
> 
> In the same token, we can produce P2PSIP-Management Protocol.
> 
> We will appreciate comments from all members of the P2PSIP WG.
> 
> BR/Radhika
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: P2PSIP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Roy, Radhika R
> CIV USARMY (US)
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 7:10 AM
> To: Songhaibin (A); [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-16.txt
> 
> Hi, Haibin and all members of this WG:
> 
> Right!
> 
> It is also P2P application issue. For example, MANET WG does the routing
> protocols for MANETs. However, they also build the RFCs/standards for the
> management standards for MANETs for each of the routing protocols they
have
> standardized.
> 
> In the same token, it is the P2PSIP WG shall to do the same. We also
expect
> to produce the RFCs/standards for the P2PSIP management standards/RFCs in
> this P2PSIP WG.
> 
> If needed, we can extend our charter. Otherwise, there is be a big gap for
> actual adaptation of the P2PSIP applications either using RELOAD or any
> other things that this P2PSIP WG has produced or will be producing.
> 
> So, we have to proactive in developing the standards for the management of
> the P2PSIP (as MANET WG does).
> 
> BR/Radhika
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Songhaibin (A) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:30 AM
> To: Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US); [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-16.txt
> 
> Hi Radhika,
> 
> This is a management issue rather than a technical issue.
> 
> Best Regards!
> -Haibin
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)
> > [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 9:07 PM
> > To: Songhaibin (A); [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-16.txt
> >
> > Hi, Haibin:
> >
> > Great!
> >
> > Yes, I also thought the same. We are looking for full management set
> > for P2PSIP.
> >
> > We saw one proposal P2PSNMP draft some time ago. Why did that draft
> > authors not continue?
> >
> > Or, will people create extensions one after another until the full set
> > for P2PSIP management available?
> >
> > BR/Radhika
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Songhaibin (A) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 7:38 PM
> > To: Roy, Radhika R CIV USARMY (US); [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-16.txt
> >
> > Hi Roy,
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: P2PSIP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Roy,
> > > Radhika R CIV USARMY (US)
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 3:25 AM
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] I-D Action:
> > > draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-16.txt
> > >
> > > Hi, Song, et al:
> > >
> > > I have one general question about the draft as follows:
> > >
> > > 1. Will these diagnostics collection by P2P RELOAD protocol as it is
> > > being extended be good enough for P2PSIP management?
> >
> > It is considered useful for diagnostics at this moment. There can be
> > future extensions. It is not a full set.
> >
> > > 2. Does it mean that we do not need any separate P2P Management
> > > Protocol (e.g. P2PSNMP aka like P2PSIP) for management P2PSIP
> > > network for all of its nodes that use P2PSIP protocol?
> >
> > IMO P2P network management and diagnostics are two different concepts,
> > and you can have other protocols/extensions for management.
> >
> > -Haibin
> >
> > > BR/Radhika
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: P2PSIP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 3:10 AM
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: [P2PSIP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-16.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories.
> > >  This draft is a work item of the Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation
> > > Protocol Working Group of the IETF.
> > >
> > >         Title           : P2P Overlay Diagnostics
> > >         Authors         : Haibin Song
> > >                           Jiang Xingfeng
> > >                           Roni Even
> > >                           David A. Bryan
> > >                           Yi Sun
> > > 	Filename        : draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-16.txt
> > > 	Pages           : 29
> > > 	Date            : 2015-01-23
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >    This document describes mechanisms for P2P overlay diagnostics.  It
> > >    defines extensions to the RELOAD P2PSIP base protocol to collect
> > >    diagnostic information, and details the protocol specifications for
> > >    these extensions.  Useful diagnostic information for connection and
> > >    node status monitoring is also defined.  The document also
describes
> > >    the usage scenarios and provides examples of how these methods are
> > >    used to perform diagnostics in P2PSIP overlay networks.
> > >
> > >
> > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/
> > >
> > > There's also a htmlized version available at:
> > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-16
> > >
> > > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-16
> > >
> > >
> > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> > tools.ietf.org.
> > >
> > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > P2PSIP mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip