IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [P2PSIP] Abusive and trustable peers and clients

Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org> Mon, 19 November 2007 15:22 UTC

Return-path: <p2psip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu8SP-0001WH-54; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:22:41 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu8SN-0001Vz-T4 for p2psip@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:22:39 -0500
Received: from usaga01-in.huawei.com ([206.16.17.211]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iu8SL-0000O4-Ju for p2psip@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:22:39 -0500
Received: from huawei.com (usaga01-in [172.18.4.6]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JRR00G5CEPPJ4@usaga01-in.huawei.com> for p2psip@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:22:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from s73602 (cpe-72-190-0-23.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.0.23]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JRR009CCEPO9Q@usaga01-in.huawei.com> for p2psip@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:22:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:22:05 -0600
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Abusive and trustable peers and clients
To: p2psip@lists.ietf.org
Message-id: <077f01c82abf$f11d0470$6601a8c0@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
Content-type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <473C730E.1080004@it.uc3m.es> <618e24240711150935v6164ae0lf7bede7e06770c99@mail.gmail.com> <473D684A.1060502@it.uc3m.es> <4d4304a00711160658h53e725a9tf98018d86353a944@mail.gmail.com> <473DC47C.5030003@it.uc3m.es> <24CCCC428EFEA2469BF046DB3C7A8D223AE2F0@namail5.corp.adobe.com> <20071117173115.1C3D933C21@delta.rtfm.com> <24CCCC428EFEA2469BF046DB3C7A8D223AE2FC@namail5.corp.adobe.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Cc:
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/p2psip>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: p2psip-bounces@ietf.org

>>>trustable nodes must have the software encrypted and signed by a
>>>central authority

>>How do you propose that other nodes determine whether a peer is
>>running such software?

>My assumption is the p2p overlay is run by an owner with a vested
>interest of protecting the overlay, just like Skype does.

I note that 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/p2psip/draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00.txt 
explicitly calls this application scenario out in Section 4.4.1 (and the 
associated attributes in Table 1).

The authors of this draft would love to see some discussion of this 
particular scenario on-list, since it seems that some people are assuming 
this scenario while others are assuming other scenarios.

And if we can't frame the discussion in a specific scenario, this turns into 
a "baby beauty contest" where everyone says "MY baby is the most 
beautiful"...

Thanks,

Spencer 



_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
P2PSIP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email