[p2p-sip] Revised concepts draft

[lowekamp at cs.wm.edu (Bruce Lowekamp)]

I think that for now the use-cases draft should remain separate and,
if there are significant new use cases proposed to add to it, they
should be added.  We should also revise it to reflect the current
terminology, of course.  A number of decisions were made about what
will be in-scope and out-of-scope at the last ad hoc.  In the process
of forming the WG and finalizing the charter, those decisions will be
re-examined and formalized/changed.  My understanding is that the
use-cases document will need to be trimmed, updated, merged, etc at
that point to reflect use-cases that fall within the proposed scope of
the charter.  I think merging it with the terminology draft at this
point would be premature.

Bruce

On 8/21/06, Eunsoo Shim <eunsoo at research.panasonic.com> wrote:
> I think we need to think about what we look for from documenting use cases.
>
> In my understanding, the current use case draft focuses on listing all
> possible (and significant) use cases of P2P SIP. It was an effort to
> convince people of importance and usefulness of P2P SIP in a sense. I
> think documenting them has some value at least for a while.
> Another motivation for the draft was to help in identifying the use
> cases the group should/want to focus on. I am not sure whether this is
> critical any more considering that the group made a significant progress
> in defining the work items for the initial charter. I wonder what other
> people think about this.
>
> Since we introduced many new terms in the terminology and concept draft,
> there arised a need for illustration of the terms, in particular, the
> roles of the architectural components. However, an illustration of the
> role of particular architectural component like the P2PSIP Overlay Peer
> Protocol does not have to depend on details of specific use cases. For
> example, it does not require to say whether it is used in a corporate
> network environment or in the global Internet scale. So I am not sure we
> need to integrate the current use case draft and the terminology and
> concept draft.
>
> What we need is general illusrations of the roles of the architectural
> components in example architectures. Fortunately there is already a
> draft doing it, even though using different terms. The architecture
> described in draft-shim-sipping-p2p-arch-00.txt is almost the same as or
> at least very close to the concepts in the terminology and concept
> draft. The architecture draft is already being revised to use the same
> terms defined in the terminology and concept draft.
>
> We might want to keep the terminology and concept draft as a collection
> of the terms and basic concepts with their concise definitions so that
> it can be referred to in most (possibly all) P2P SIP related drafts. And
> we can collect architecture illustrations in the architecture draft,
> possibly listing some architecture variations. Some stuff like a data
> format for user location can be removed from the architecture draft.
>
> The final details of what a particular component MAY/SHOULD/MUST do and
> not do will be described in the protocol specification drafts.
> Eventually people will come up with lots of creative use cases and
> architecture variations we don't think of now.
>
> My 2 cents.
> Thanks.
>
> Eunsoo
> Scott W Brim wrote:
>
> >On 08/21/2006 10:36 AM, Dean Willis allegedly wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm amenable, but it is possible that the group might think we should
> >>revise the use cases draft using the language of the concepts and
> >>terminology draft rather than putting use cases into the concepts and
> >>terminology draft.
> >>
> >>What is the "happy medium" here, folks?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Concepts and terminology make it possible to talk about use cases and
> >have some confidence that we agree on what they actually mean.  Use
> >cases clarify the scope and test the C&T to make sure they are useful
> >when applied to the real world.  In general for most WGs I think these
> >two should be together in one draft (call it a "framework").  You're
> >going to be iterating back and forth anyway, since each depends on and
> >supports the other.  I think we should try the experiment of putting
> >them all in one draft.  If it turns out to be more confusing than
> >having them separate, we can easily separate them again.
> >_______________________________________________
> >p2p-sip mailing list
> >p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> >https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-sip mailing list
> p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip
>
>