[P2PSIP] Concept draft: Open issues #5 - 8

[Philip Matthews <[e-mail]>]

Folks:

Back in late January I posted four more open issues for the Concepts  
draft.
There was some discussion on these, and I am going to summarize here
what I think was agreed to as a result of these discussions.

I plan to make these changes to the draft in the next couple of days.

- Philip


Open issue #5: Users vs. Resources vs. Services.
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/p2p-sip/2007-January/001998.html
=======================================
I propose to go with the following description of these. This is my  
original proposal above
except for the addition of a change suggested by Richard Barnes.

Users are humans. A user may be represented in the P2P Overlay by
multiple UAs, which represent the various different ways that the
user may be contacted (e.g., desk phone, mobile). Some of these may
answer even if the user is not available (e.g., voicemail server).

A service represents something that a peer can do on behalf of
another peer.  Multiple peers may offer the same service. Within a
service type (e.g., "STUN server"), there may be differentiation
between the peers on the exact sub-type of the service provided
(e.g., "STUN server" vs. "STUN server with relay service"). However,
once the sub-type is selected, the service is identical  between
peers, so which one to contact can be determined by things such as
net-path efficiency.

Information about a UA, user, or service may be stored in the  
distributed
database. The information is stored in a "record", which has an
associated "key" which is used for lookup.

It may be that a P2PSIP Overlay will store other information in the
distributed database. Generically, we use the term "resource" for
the information that can be stored in the distributed database.



Open issue #6: Data Model vs Service Model
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/p2p-sip/2007-January/001998.html
=========================================================
I propose to add the concept of a Data Model vs a Service Model,
as described in
     http://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=388
and
     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-singh-p2p-sip-01.txt
Dan Romascanu requested that we come up with different terms,
and I will try to do that. (Feel free to make suggestions!)



Open issue #7: Admitting Peer
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/p2p-sip/2007-January/002000.html
=========================================================
I propose to add the terms "Joining Peer" and "Admitting Peer"
and change "Peer  Insertion" to "Peer Admission".



Open issue #8: Expressing "Client protocol = SIP?"
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/p2p-sip/2007-January/002013.html
=========================================================
I propose to rephase this question as "Do clients exist?".


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