Re: [P2PSIP] new draft: draft-zangrilli-p2psip-whysip-00

[EdPimentl <[e-mail]>]

Here is how I see it.



                        P2PSIP----<builtin SIP 3261>----SIPCLIENT
                             |
                             |
                             -----------------P2PSIP (other compliant DHT
overlay)

-E

On 3/15/07, Eric Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I believe this draft is proposing that SIP is a good choice for the Peer
> protocol.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it says anything about
> the Client protocol (or even if Clients exist).  I'm using the term
> "Clients" as described in the concepts draft.
>
> SIP may have a bunch of baggage that people would like to deprecate and
> perhaps we could leave some of it out if/when SIP is used as a Peer protocol
> (I'm thinking UDP support), but I don't know that we can do anything about
> early media.  Media is not really what the peer protocol is about.  It's
> about user/resource location.
>
> It sounds like you're interested in SIP 3.0, but I don't think this WG is
> really the vehicle for that, since our charter says that "Session
> management, messaging, and presence functions are performed using
> conventional SIP".
>
> I do think it would be great if we could get existing 3261 UAs to access
> the user/resource location service of P2PSIP.  We could do this by
>
> 1) coupling a P2PSIP Peer with a 3261 Proxy/Registrar; and/or
> 2) adding a P2PSIP Client to an existing 3261 UA.
>
> I personally prefer option 1, but even if we select option 2, *and* we
> decide that SIP is a good P2PSIP Client protocol, that doesn't mean that we
> can do anything about the 3261 usage of SIP for making VoIP calls.  Note
> that it's possible to select option 2 without using SIP as the Client
> protocol.  I believe
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/draft-singh-p2p-sip-01.txt proposes something
> like option 2.  In this case, would you and Dean also advocate changes to
> SIP?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Eric.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Rosen" <[e-mail]>
> To: "'Dean Willis'" <[e-mail]>; "'Bruce Lowekamp'" <
> [e-mail]>
> Cc: "'P2PSIP Mailing List'" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:30 PM
> Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] new draft: draft-zangrilli-p2psip-whysip-00
>
>
> >I think this is a point worth spending some time on.
> >
> > We can take the position that we want as many EXISTING sip clients to be
> > conforming p2psip clients, in which case we probably don't want to have
> any
> > restrictions on those clients.  If they are 3261 compliant, they are
> p2psip
> > compliant.  We could require some other RFCs if all or at least most
> > EXISTING sip clients did them.
> >
> > If we step off that particular bandwagon and say "oh, no, actually, we
> need
> > this teeny weenie change in your SIP client", then Dean, and several of
> us
> > would like to say if you aren't going to take a sip client as-is, then
> we
> > would like to say more than a few things about the p2psip
> client.  Things
> > like:
> > No forking
> > No UDP
> > No early media
> >
> > And a few choice others.  Probably deletions only, nothing new.
> >
> > PLEASE do not whine to me about how little work your teeny weenie change
> is
> > to the existing client.  I think that either sip, as is, is the client
> > protocol, or it isn't.  If it isn't, then we have some things to say...
> >
> > I suspect that we'll end up with sip, as is, is the client
> protocol.  More
> > is the pity, but it's probably where we will end up.  I'd like a chance
> to
> > make p2psip more appropriate to the problem at hand, and less dependent
> on
> > the problem of compatibility to the PSTN and a few mistakes made early
> > before we knew better.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:07 PM
> >> To: Bruce Lowekamp
> >> Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
> >> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] new draft: draft-zangrilli-p2psip-whysip-00
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Bruce Lowekamp wrote:
> >>
> >> > There has been some recent traffic on the list and in some of the
> >> > drafts about the choice of sip or not-sip as the Peer Protocol for
> >> > p2psip.  Marcia and I thought that we would try to organize our
> >> > thoughts on why SIP is the right choice for a Peer Protocol and to
> >> > address some of the concerns that have been expressed about it.  (We
> >> > refer directly to draft-baset-p2psip-p2pcommon-01, which seems to
> >> > present a good organized list of concerns about SIP as the Peer
> >> > Protocol.)
> >>
> >> My major concern is that SIP-as-it-exists is complicated and makes my
> >> head hurt. It also fails to address the transited-node security
> >> problem, which is a major problem in some P2P architectures (where
> >> random peers get to fondle your message as it goes by).
> >>
> >> The sipsec: model does seem to fix this security problem, and if were
> >> adopted exclusively, might well fix some of the other complexity
> >> issues (like switching from UDP to TCP on command so that you can
> >> receive a large MESSAGE).
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dean
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> P2PSIP mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
> >
> >
>
>

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip