[p2p-sip] Where are we "getting wrapped around the DNS axle"

[enrico.marocco at telecomitalia.it (Enrico Marocco)]

Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Enrico Marocco:
>> That's the whole point.  We have been figuring a system that doesn't
>> depend on any provider since the very beginning.  If some are available,
>> it can make use of them (e.g. for bootstrap), otherwise it must work
>> anyway, even if with limited (but still required, at least in some
>> "uncommon" scenarios) functionalities.
> 
> I would argue that doing a DNS-protocol lookup given the fixed IP addresses
> of the canonical root DNS servers (and, if you like, the fixed IP addresses
> of some non-traditional root DNS servers) is *exactly the same* as doing a
> DHT-protocol lookup given the fixed IP addresses of some seed nodes for the
> DHT. And I would argue that if one can find the node at which an answer
> would be stored, one can send updated information to that node as often as
> bandwidth permits.

Come on, everybody agrees that when DNS is available both for
provisioning and for lookup, it is better to use it instead of fixed IP
addresses.  It's usage has been proposed and welcomed in many
discussions about bootstrap and interwoking (let me mention
draft-marocco-p2psip-interwork).

The goal of the working group is to specify the minimal set of tools for
managing decentralized overlays capable of routing SIP messages,
preventing identity thefts _within_ an overlay and providing a resource
discovery mechanism for NAT traversal.  It seems that people writing on
this list consider DHT as the most promising technology for achieving
that goal;  if you disagree, just describe your alternative based on
DNS, mDNS or whatever, and try to gather consensus in the way people in
IETF are used to (i.e. writing I-Ds).  On the other hand, if you
disagree not only on the technical solution, but also on the goal, since
it is stated in the charter -- the _contract_ between the WG and the
IESG -- I think you are in the wrong place.

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico