Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a dissenting opinion
"David A. Bryan" <dbryan@sipeerior.com> Fri, 13 July 2007 22:16 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 1I9TRE-0001R7-W8; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:16:37 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9TRB-0001QQ-J9 for p2psip@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:16:33 -0400
Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.180]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9TR7-0001no-44 for p2psip@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:16:33 -0400
Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id f31so1830784pyh for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=glWyXShA13lb5devQbaDMOquH8LlDcuLlkr2N6MXTHvTo4kWKceUgkaVb6RGgQINUI2P89nFiRbrA00GQ4cmyCpCouDtM4HFpz4k7xrxfoURGzJjn0MUaA5rPsFaXjrrlXsNIZksYor3zFKlWjouHBCQtIVbWPM4lgyF9BZs2sQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=j1E0orPyu2paHBnhZ3KCfYM7RUeqiuE5dDHkgQET3ZJxRS5dR9X1tEqFFViCKQ/vc6AyldZlnl8OU2FIZdeHLKXQFu/X+mlSzR5e1AJb9JlX5svZM96r0bxxwZP3yTNGq2op6O26FFLKvWpxKbZpnoG9ovbjlkyI2X44jHNpPD4=
Received: by 10.65.121.9 with SMTP id y9mr3825057qbm.1184364988567; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.65.243.3 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4d4304a00707131516p12fedab1pc22124ce7879e20f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:16:28 -0700
From: "David A. Bryan" <dbryan@sipeerior.com>
To: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a dissenting opinion
In-Reply-To: <4697F02B.4030506@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4697F02B.4030506@cisco.com>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: f6cf23fd466a56c8
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7fa173a723009a6ca8ce575a65a5d813
Cc: P2PSIP WG <p2psip@ietf.org>
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
I think this likely to be a source of serious discussion. At least for now (maybe Jonathan can convince me), I'm inclined to disagree. I think the problem is that if we don't specify a mandatory to implement, there may be many devices from different vendors that don't even implement a common DHT. Each will pick and choose which DHTs to implement, and in the end, there won't be a common DHT all can even run if they want to. I think looking at it from the perspective of "once the DHT chosen it is locked" is the wrong way to look at it. The idea isn't that any device can join any already established overlay, but that if I deploy a system of heterogeneous devices, there is at least one that I can select when I start and know that all "P2PSIP endpoints" (assuming that term means anything) will at least support that and I can form an overlay with them. Maybe not the ideal DHT for my overlay, but something I know all devices can support, and if I run it in that mode, it works. Personally, I think if we don't do that, many DHTs will be standardized for different environments (good) but each vendor will implement a (potentially disjoint) subset, and there may be no way to use two endpoints from different vendors together at all. I agree that if a user selects a non-mandatory DHT, they may risk not being fully interoperable, but I think if we don't pick one at all, we almost guarantee things won't be interoperable. And I (and I think nearly everyone) is 100% in the camp of "we should allow pluggable DHTs". I think it is safe to say that one is a done deal, but I would personally have thought a mandatory was as well. In any case, my vote is definitely for pluggable DHTs. David On 7/13/07, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com> wrote: > I've read draft-bryan-p2psip-requirements-00, and have a bunch of > comments. But a few items came to mind I wanted to discuss which merit > their own threads. > > First, is the concept of mandatory-to-implement DHT. The requirements > document talks a lot about requirements around selecting a mandatory to > implement DHT. Its something we've discussed in the meeting and on the > list. I think everyone agrees also that we need to allow for multiple > DHT and all of the recent protocol proposals support it. > > However, I do not think we should have a mandatory-to-implement DHT at all. > > There are several reasons for this. First of all, its important to > understand the reason why IETF has mandatory-to-implement functionality > in its protocols. The one and only reason is that it ensures > interoperability. It ensures that, independent of the optional features > selected by a pair of entities, when you connect them together, they can > still interoperate. > > This property will NOT be retained with a mandatory-to-implement DHT. > Once the ring forms, the DHT protocol is chosen and locked. Thus, if any > DHT besides the 'mandatory-to-implement' one has been selected for the > DHT, a new node not supporting that DHT will not be able to join the > ring even if it implements the mandatory-to-implement one. Thus, the > entire purpose of mandatory-to-implement is eliminated - we don't > actually get interoperability. > > Indeed, to get this kind of interoperability, we'd need to pick one and > only one DHT that ever gets used with p2psip. I think that is a mistake. > This is an evolving area and is one where agility is important. > > Instead, what I think happens is that a 'provider' that deploys a p2p > network will need to pick a DHT, and make sure that the clients all > support that DHT. This is something the market should drive, not us. > > Secondly, I think its important to realize that we are picking up work > in an area that is well trod. There are lots and lots of papers and > protocols and software written around P2P networks. I don't think anyone > looks at an IETF protocol and says, "IETF are the guys who know about > DHTs, lets go with their recommendation". What IETF is really good at, > and what this group has expertise in, is SIP, and on designing good, > scalable protocols in general - things that have security, > extensibility, good performance, and so on. So I think the greatest > value we can bring to the table is to create a protocol that allows > others to take DHTs and easily turn them into a real wire protocol that > you can actually deploy, on the Internet, to support SIP and ideally > other things too. Interestingly, this is exactly what all of the > protocol proposals do. That kind of focus goes hand-in-hand with saying, > let someone else figure out which DHT to use. I think its perfectly > reasonable for us, and for others, to write documents on how to use our > protocol with various DHTs. But I think we should be out of the business > of picking one or recommending one (or ones) to be used. > > -Jonathan R. > -- > Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza > Cisco Fellow Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711 > Cisco Systems > jdrosen@cisco.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 > http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 > http://www.cisco.com > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > P2PSIP@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > -- David A. Bryan dbryan@SIPeerior.com +1.757.565.0101 x101 +1.757.565.0088 (fax) www.SIPeerior.com _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list P2PSIP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
- [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a dissenti… Jonathan Rosenberg
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David A. Bryan
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Ted Hardie
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Emil Ivov
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Ted Hardie
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Medhavi Bhatia
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Krishna Sankar (ksankar)
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David A. Bryan
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David A. Bryan
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Wei Gengyu
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Kundan Singh
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David Barrett
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Kundan Singh
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David Barrett
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Bruce Lowekamp
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David Barrett
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Henning Schulzrinne
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David Barrett
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Roy, Radhika R.
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Eunsoo Shim
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Eunsoo Shim
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Eunsoo Shim
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Roy, Radhika R.
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Roy, Radhika R.
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David A. Bryan
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David Barrett
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David A. Bryan
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Henning Schulzrinne
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David Barrett
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Bruce Lowekamp
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David Barrett
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Ted Hardie
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Ted Hardie
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… He, Jingtong
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Henning Schulzrinne
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David Barrett
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Henry Sinnreich
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… David Barrett
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Jonathan Rosenberg
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Bruce Lowekamp
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Roy, Radhika R.
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Roy, Radhika R.
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Brian Rosen
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Ted Hardie
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Brian Rosen
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Ted Hardie
- RE: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Brian Rosen
- Re: [P2PSIP] Mandatory-to-implement DHTs - a diss… Bill Mccormick