Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft

David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org> Tue, 03 February 2015 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dbryan@ethernot.org>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0DA1A040C for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:14:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id avYyyl2xodgW for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:14:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com (mail-we0-f175.google.com [74.125.82.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD1F11A0065 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:14:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id p10so45620511wes.6 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 07:14:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=fmVrYBmnHoXI0TBx6xBZOIZpuzI/7nJhbMPZAGnZ9qc=; b=NpbVU0+zzKJnZvnZerpEVt2mDPWPE5eTWwYXGNt15t5L5tcZxW9o1hoZHEYshpLFtV RF0yrN49hbEeBBALAhkSRYXtEcMUTfs7AM1I5XlIfpOFSZwsViI0JY3L4cXVRsfQdWLh pXORdLZukqfovCQXGC6lCXgzihAGcvYSuR1J5AyQobb2NHq+hfLe+5ElM7lrLY6lHv8S QPnTRAQ0T/er0Lzxoqf0uejjrmC4ROgptq0mqIwTxLi/QXw4gYD50l3QuJg/rN7aV/iL mM6ml/0aSgHjp1yGF+WjYU9hiLEN8O7C3ISuKEc7Drn3nghV/FRxy/tQ8A1QPa2XfEWK jLLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmCcJPaj6FysO9VlZxKx/UnSfDHyaf/kTRYlf8AaIOBhPq4xeUqoVYUJpQ1rzA+0SgXAmRe
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.220.7 with SMTP id ps7mr53957681wjc.84.1422976445250; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 07:14:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.217.79 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:14:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.217.79 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:14:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54D0DCBE.4040005@ericsson.com>
References: <CADqQgCRibXV_xTEmPanFPd=mUH+L2C_WVBixrc5HowKE-K21Gg@mail.gmail.com> <C113765E-E794-45FF-8C11-9523E0D2CB67@neustar.biz> <54D088CA.2060104@ericsson.com> <CADqQgCTPjoYe5acygbx+Re9U_sYTa6JN+VJU2GmQ2BGQAqLWEQ@mail.gmail.com> <54D0DCBE.4040005@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 09:14:05 -0600
Message-ID: <CADqQgCTk-efY_6SAYb53F5zzR3niSzBFPuevrcWm++sgWeMR-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1b4248b163f050e30857d"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/CwOURt1cx3onozvvbuIwItZ5jxI>
Cc: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>, P2PSIP WG <p2psip@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip/>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 15:14:10 -0000

I can iterate next week or week after, and yes, agree it is very close to
ready for WGLC.
On Feb 3, 2015 8:35 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> thanks for the quick response! Given the status, I think you can just
> revise the draft and get the chairs to WGLC it. Do you have an ETA for
> such a revision?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 03/02/2015 3:43 PM, David Bryan wrote:
> > I am indeed. It needs one small pass to conform to 6940 language but
> > should otherwise be good to go. I have in my notes that I was waiting
> > for any further comments, but the list has been very quiet.
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2015 2:37 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo"
> > <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >     Hi,
> >
> >     what is the status of this draft? Are its authors actively working
> >     on it?
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >
> >     Gonzalo
> >
> >     On 17/06/2014 8:33 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote:
> >     >
> >     > On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org
> >     <mailto:dbryan@ethernot.org>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >> I was recently asked to update the concepts draft and discuss the
> >     important issues. The pass that has been made is largely around
> >     normalizing the text to be compliant with the terminology of RFC
> >     6940, but it certainly will need an additional pass after a few
> >     questions to the group:
> >     >>
> >     >> To move this draft forward, there are a few open issues/questions:
> >     >>
> >     >>    MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-level
> >     description
> >     >>    about proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very long and
> >     >>    contentious debate about the role of the protocol, and
> reflected a
> >     >>    pretense that this was an overlay only for P2PSIP.  That is not
> >     >>    really true in base anymore (see last paragraph of
> >     introduction) and
> >     >>    the language has been very much genericized in base.  Should
> >     we make
> >     >>    this text more abstract and then use AoR->contact mapping as an
> >     >>    example of the (original) use?  On a related note, see the last
> >     >>    paragraph of the Background section -- do we want to reword
> this?
> >     >>
> >     >> (my thought would be to make the text more generic, and mention
> >     that the AoR->contact mapping is the most popular usage…)
> >     > Agree
> >     >
> >     >>
> >     >>    OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that documents previous
> >     >>    decisions made, to preserve the historical debate and prevent
> past
> >     >>    issues from being raised in the future, or simply rely on the
> >     mailing
> >     >>    list to address these concerns?
> >     >>
> >     >> (I don't think we want to do this. Huge (and largely unneeded)
> >     can of worms, but it has been in the open issues section for some
> >     time and should be at least asked of the list)
> >     > No, we don’t need to do this
> >     >
> >     >>
> >     >>    OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from
> >     >>    draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired)?  There
> was
> >     >>    some interest in doing so in previous versions, but no
> >     conclusion was
> >     >>    reached.
> >     >>
> >     >> (given the current stage of the group, I would say these aren't
> >     likely to be useful anymore, but again, as it is currently listed as
> >     an open issue in the draft, need to check)
> >     > Nah, I don’t think it is necessary, or even that useful at this
> point
> >     >
> >     >>
> >     >> The final open issue is do we want to advance the draft? In
> >     discussion with the chairs and some folks, it seems the answer is
> >     yes, there is useful material and we should push the draft out, but
> >     I wanted to discuss. Assuming there is still interest, I'd also
> >     welcome any comments on the draft...I'm sure I missed a few spots
> >     where it no longer aligns with 6940.
> >     > I would like to see this finished.
> >     >
> >     >>
> >     >> David
> >     >> _______________________________________________
> >     >> P2PSIP mailing list
> >     >> P2PSIP@ietf.org <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org>
> >     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
> >     >
> >     > _______________________________________________
> >     > P2PSIP mailing list
> >     > P2PSIP@ietf.org <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org>
> >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
> >     >
> >
>
>