RE: [P2PSIP] Concepts document: proposal for active/passive peerterminology

> I am actually quite sympathetic to the argument that P2PSIP should  
> not just be about SIP.

Agree

There is a lot of substance for both (1) the "client" argument and also
(2) the "database" argument in the I-D that I recommend reading:

> And I agree that supporting this strongly suggests that there should  
> be a "database access" protocol that is distinct from SIP.

Agree

As for the recent discussions, there is a lot of substance for both (1)
the "client" argument and also (2) the "database" argument in the I-D
that I recommend reading:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-singh-p2p-sip-01.txt 

I already regret going on vacation all next week and missing the fun :-)

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Matthews [mailto:philip_matthews@magma.ca] 
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 5:11 PM
To: marcin.matuszewski@nokia.com> <marcin.matuszewski@nokia.com; Salman
Abdul Baset
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts document: proposal for active/passive
peerterminology

I am actually quite sympathetic to the argument that P2PSIP should  
not just be about SIP.
I do not think that SIP will be the only protocol used inside the  
overlay, and I now think
that the peer protocol should be something other than SIP.

But in your last few messages, you two seem to be proposing something  
different.
It seems that you want the Distributed Database inside a P2PSIP  
overlay to be used for
non-SIP-related data, and for this non-SIP-related data to be  
accessible via Puts/Gets
from outside the overlay.

I think this is a very interesting idea, but this is a new direction  
that I believe has not been suggested before.

And I agree that supporting this strongly suggests that there should  
be a "database access" protocol
that is distinct from SIP.

- Philip

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
P2PSIP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip