Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Fri, 06 February 2015 08:43 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
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 1BC0F1A0108 for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 00:43:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 DSaReXi8zfrG for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 00:43:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0B161A19F8 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 00:43:08 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79116d000000fec-32-54d47e9a94a4
Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 12.7A.04076.A9E74D45; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:43:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.126.85] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:43:06 +0100
Message-ID: <54D37C57.1050802@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:21:11 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>, David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org>
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> <CADqQgCTk-efY_6SAYb53F5zzR3niSzBFPuevrcWm++sgWeMR-Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOHm=4sFfPybt649HTVKGbKEpB6LJE9VrXEf9NfLKLN1Td6gxg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOHm=4sFfPybt649HTVKGbKEpB6LJE9VrXEf9NfLKLN1Td6gxg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7suishBisfcVlMO3mZ2WLS38/s FruuaFksuXmG0YHF4/G3P8weS5b8ZPLY0fCc2ePikm+MASxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBnzm68y FswxqXjY3MzUwLhavouRk0NCwERi6uW3jBC2mMSFe+vZuhi5OIQEjjBKrP0D46xmlNg0/wcT SBWvgLbEt2kTWLoYOThYBFQkFn1JAAmzCVhIbLl1nwXEFhWIkph9/gErRLmgxMmZT8DiIgJ+ Eg9urARrZRawl+i/JQgSFgaasuX0c3aIVZOYJZpuTwPr5RQIlOi/cZEVol5TYv0ufZAws4C8 RPPW2cwgthDQNcuftbBMYBSchWTbLISOWUg6FjAyr2IULU4tLs5NNzLSSy3KTC4uzs/Ty0st 2cQIDOiDW35b7WA8+NzxEKMAB6MSD6+B3pUQIdbEsuLK3EOM0hwsSuK8dsaHQoQE0hNLUrNT UwtSi+KLSnNSiw8xMnFwSjUwCl+Qk1rjEulgxHJC7sV6w17mmIuuf87NbT6ywMmF55OZhEbw qWntK2Jj7umvP9h4P8txdkj8rQn95yRXOd7YzbJXS2GVfVe5uoH9PD+zOdkzNu642rp3d6BA 7H/v7R1FRQapn2Lkv85+Y1jBkvj14esXNk+/X5/TW3JQ/ZIV11KDyfosq9b+VGIpzkg01GIu Kk4EANpz8ZRJAgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/F1aTM82UfhBVfoIoV1NioWE42So>
Cc: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>, 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: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:43:12 -0000

Hi,

> David is my hero.

s/my/our/ :-)

>     I can iterate next week or week after, and yes, agree it is very
>     close to ready for WGLC.

If you could revise the draft in that time frame, that would be really
great. Also, if you could discuss on the list what remains to be
resolved in order to get the draft to be ready for WGLC, that would give
us a way forward.

Thanks!

Gonzalo


> 
>     On Feb 3, 2015 8:35 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo"
>     <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
>     <mailto: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>
>         <mailto: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>
>         >     <mailto: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>
>         <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org>>
>         >     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>         >     >
>         >     > _______________________________________________
>         >     > P2PSIP mailing list
>         >     > P2PSIP@ietf.org <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org>
>         <mailto: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
>