Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft
Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Mon, 13 April 2015 08:13 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 50E671B2E9A for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 01:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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 lm_Xxqnd3MVH for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 01:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E43451B2E99 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 01:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79996d000006ebb-f7-552b7aac7660
Received: from ESESSHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CC.93.28347.CAA7B255; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:13:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [131.160.126.136] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 10:13:26 +0200
Message-ID: <552B7AA6.2090409@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:13:26 +0300
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
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> <54D37C57.1050802@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <54D37C57.1050802@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje6aKu1Qg5arBhbTTl5mtpj09zO7 xa4rWhZLbp5hdGDxePztD7PHkiU/mTx2NDxn9ri45BtjAEsUl01Kak5mWWqRvl0CV8afb04F 980rvqz9zNTAuEWpi5GTQ0LARKJh5zQWCFtM4sK99WxdjFwcQgJHGSX27t/ADpIQEljLKPHx m0cXIwcHr4C2xI4lLiBhFgFViSO/z7OC2GwCFhJbbt0HmyMqECUx8eshMJtXQFDi5MwnYLaI gJ/EgxsrWUDGMAvYS/TfEgQJCwuoSGw5/ZwdYu0mZonJnS+ZQBKcAjoSH07tZYKo15RYv0sf JMwsIC/RvHU2M8Rl2hLLn7WwTGAUnIVk2yyEjllIOhYwMq9iFC1OLU7KTTcy0kstykwuLs7P 08tLLdnECAzmg1t+G+xgfPnc8RCjAAejEg/vg1daoUKsiWXFlbmHGKU5WJTEee2MD4UICaQn lqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYGxtLZq/SHdXuGYId/zJxdMC1n+/rnXje0Pzozn81ZLr br2Y8Pdau8u3ezea+w/1rJU5o7smZaue3s4kOdcr0/qc2B4uO/srqu+A5guBr+X7GSKLH5/s 6heSX/nFbuaSVRn3/Geuu6uavrtdT4adN1G2a7XoBi5jabPbyxaHm0frnPy5+vFegz4lluKM REMt5qLiRACZpb6zRwIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/H-xzvj-tl8RvQTVuTtUjOmo7BoQ>
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: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:13:37 -0000
Hi David, what is the status of this effort? Cheers, Gonzalo On 05/02/2015 4:21 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > P2PSIP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >
- [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft David Bryan
- Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft Songhaibin (A)
- Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft Rosen, Brian
- Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft David Bryan
- Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft David Bryan
- Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft Dean Willis
- Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft Gonzalo Camarillo