[p2p-sip] Revised concepts draft

[eunsoo at research.panasonic.com (Eunsoo Shim)]

I think we need to think about what we look for from documenting use cases.

In my understanding, the current use case draft focuses on listing all
possible (and significant) use cases of P2P SIP. It was an effort to
convince people of importance and usefulness of P2P SIP in a sense. I
think documenting them has some value at least for a while.
Another motivation for the draft was to help in identifying the use
cases the group should/want to focus on. I am not sure whether this is
critical any more considering that the group made a significant progress
in defining the work items for the initial charter. I wonder what other
people think about this.

Since we introduced many new terms in the terminology and concept draft,
there arised a need for illustration of the terms, in particular, the
roles of the architectural components. However, an illustration of the
role of particular architectural component like the P2PSIP Overlay Peer
Protocol does not have to depend on details of specific use cases. For
example, it does not require to say whether it is used in a corporate
network environment or in the global Internet scale. So I am not sure we
need to integrate the current use case draft and the terminology and
concept draft.

What we need is general illusrations of the roles of the architectural
components in example architectures. Fortunately there is already a
draft doing it, even though using different terms. The architecture
described in draft-shim-sipping-p2p-arch-00.txt is almost the same as or
at least very close to the concepts in the terminology and concept
draft. The architecture draft is already being revised to use the same
terms defined in the terminology and concept draft.

We might want to keep the terminology and concept draft as a collection
of the terms and basic concepts with their concise definitions so that
it can be referred to in most (possibly all) P2P SIP related drafts. And
we can collect architecture illustrations in the architecture draft,
possibly listing some architecture variations. Some stuff like a data
format for user location can be removed from the architecture draft.

The final details of what a particular component MAY/SHOULD/MUST do and
not do will be described in the protocol specification drafts.
Eventually people will come up with lots of creative use cases and
architecture variations we don't think of now.

My 2 cents.
Thanks.

Eunsoo
Scott W Brim wrote:

>On 08/21/2006 10:36 AM, Dean Willis allegedly wrote:
>  
>
>>I'm amenable, but it is possible that the group might think we should  
>>revise the use cases draft using the language of the concepts and  
>>terminology draft rather than putting use cases into the concepts and  
>>terminology draft.
>>
>>What is the "happy medium" here, folks?
>>    
>>
>
>Concepts and terminology make it possible to talk about use cases and
>have some confidence that we agree on what they actually mean.  Use
>cases clarify the scope and test the C&T to make sure they are useful
>when applied to the real world.  In general for most WGs I think these
>two should be together in one draft (call it a "framework").  You're
>going to be iterating back and forth anyway, since each depends on and
>supports the other.  I think we should try the experiment of putting
>them all in one draft.  If it turns out to be more confusing than
>having them separate, we can easily separate them again.
>_______________________________________________
>p2p-sip mailing list
>p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
>https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip
>  
>