Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Tue, 03 February 2015 14:35 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 2A3811A0469 for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 06:35:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 sm0tsJv28YRS for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 06:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DC871A040C for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 06:35:45 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79fc6d000001087-32-54d0dcbf232a
Received: from ESESSHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 42.B6.04231.FBCD0D45; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 15:35:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.36.87] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 15:35:43 +0100
Message-ID: <54D0DCBE.4040005@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:35:42 +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: 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>
In-Reply-To: <CADqQgCTPjoYe5acygbx+Re9U_sYTa6JN+VJU2GmQ2BGQAqLWEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7+OxdCDDrfiltMO3mZ2WLS38/s FktunmF0YPZ4/O0Ps8eSJT+ZPHY0PGcOYI7isklJzcksSy3St0vgyjj7tY+9YJ1ixYo5F9ga GP+KdzFyckgImEi8O36ZBcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAEUaJe4sfsEI4qxglVt1uYexi5ODgFdCW WLWtFqSBRUBF4s27JkYQm03AQmLLrftgg0QFoiRmnwfp5QQqF5Q4OfMJC0iriICqxPaTUiBh ZgFPiauXjzOB2MJAY7acfs4OseoFo8SN121gCU6BQInfM5aA9TILaEqs36UP0Ssv0bx1NjOI LQR0zfJnLSwTGAVnIdk2C6FjFpKOBYzMqxhFi1OLi3PTjYz1Uosyk4uL8/P08lJLNjECw/fg lt+6OxhXv3Y8xCjAwajEw7vB8kKIEGtiWXFl7iFGaQ4WJXFeO+NDIUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRfFF pTmpxYcYmTg4pRoYCw7arZCZkaL9e73zCZ83IVeucfNNX62RaVJU8XpBr2CczlQD0a8Nd7VW qBRrb3Hl1pfNWTztSHXIRvvsLZkf3mqJX12/SFTKlPf9o62tx/6f49iQwy4jtPpy/dvpJolR PAfauOWu8ITfbjO4sIaxOvWZPku85oa2ver7zt1dmvJDX1j40tQ/SizFGYmGWsxFxYkArtFZ jUACAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/K9QcdXjz81pgb_ykqZMtYHtxObo>
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 14:35:54 -0000

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
>     >
>