IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [P2PSIP] [P2PSIP:Survey] P2PSIP Client Character/Behavior

"Henry Sinnreich" <hsinnrei@adobe.com> Fri, 16 November 2007 22:05 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 1It9JB-0004wd-9i; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:05:05 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1It9JA-0004wY-CB for p2psip@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:05:04 -0500
Received: from exprod6og52.obsmtp.com ([64.18.1.185]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1It9J9-0003q5-Qw for p2psip@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:05:04 -0500
Received: from source ([192.150.20.142]) by exprod6ob52.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:05:01 PST
Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id lAGM4xKn011920; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:05:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fe1.corp.adobe.com (fe1.corp.adobe.com [10.8.192.70]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id lAGM4gRE017058; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:04:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from namail5.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.192.88]) by fe1.corp.adobe.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:04:42 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] [P2PSIP:Survey] P2PSIP Client Character/Behavior
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:04:41 -0800
Message-ID: <24CCCC428EFEA2469BF046DB3C7A8D223AE2EB@namail5.corp.adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <042a01c82887$6e30d850$6601a8c0@china.huawei.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] [P2PSIP:Survey] P2PSIP Client Character/Behavior
Thread-Index: Acgoh4fvGJSDOQgYQQKjBp2n3x3GRAAE3EmA
References: <00e501c8272a$905b2060$5105a40a@china.huawei.com><7F42DC87-4271-4E9C-A11F-C91123B59D15@magma.ca><0aef01c8278a$b68ad0e0$ad600240@china.huawei.com><9C8C25BD-E1C7-4940-9A42-5261CA150950@magma.ca><24CCCC428EFEA2469BF046DB3C7A8D223AE2D1@namail5.corp.adobe.com> <042a01c82887$6e30d850$6601a8c0@china.huawei.com>
From: Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei@adobe.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>, P2PSIP Mailing List <p2psip@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2007 22:04:42.0486 (UTC) FILETIME=[B0B72160:01C8289C]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8
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

It's OK and please don't worry about the difficulties of completely
clear mail communications. If anything, they only point to how more
difficult tight protocol specifications are :-)

Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer@mcsr-labs.org] 
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:33 AM
To: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] [P2PSIP:Survey] P2PSIP Client Character/Behavior

If I have confused Henry and other people - in Philip's note that Henry 
replied to, the text was "but none of us are strong advocates of
clients".

This was from MY earlier posting, on 15-Nov-07, at 08:23, where the
context 
was

> (HINT: the application scenarios draft includes analysis about
> whether each scenario seems to require "P2P Client Support" and/or
> "Interoperation with CS-SIP" - I don't think any of the draft
> authors are prejudiced against clients, but none of us are strong
> advocates of clients, so it would be good to have client advocates
> develop opinions about whether that analysis is reasonable or not)

I was referring to the draft authors for a specific draft, not to the
entire 
working group, or the entire P2P community :-)

What I meant by this was that the draft authors had gone through each 
application scenario, looking for the scenarios that seemed to require
more 
users than peers, assuming that the way you support more users than
peers is 
through SOME kind of client, either CS-SIP or "a client protocol", and 
trying to visualize whether CS-SIP would be sufficient in these
scenarios, 
but none of the authors had expressed strong opinions about the need for
a 
non-SIP client protocol during our work on the draft.

When this draft was submitted, none of us had written a draft advocating

non-SIP clients, although Eunsoo said earlier this week that he will do 
that.

That's ALL I meant, and if people would like to express opinions about 
application scenarios in 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/p2psip/draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00.txt,
we 
would be thrilled to hear them.

Thanks,

Spencer 



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

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email