FW: [P2PSIP] Concept draft: Open issues #5 - 8
JiangXingFeng <jiang.x.f@huawei.com> Tue, 27 February 2007 02:29 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLs5W-0004Ek-Tt; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:29:10 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLs5V-0004EY-Cz for p2psip@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:29:09 -0500
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.54]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLs5T-0005bv-4F for p2psip@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:29:09 -0500
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JE300BTPO701Z@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for p2psip@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:28:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.18]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JE300AMAO6ZZ1@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for p2psip@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:28:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from j36340 ([10.164.5.114]) by szxml03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0JE300LODO6WWU@szxml03-in.huawei.com> for p2psip@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:28:11 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:28:08 +0800
From: JiangXingFeng <jiang.x.f@huawei.com>
Subject: FW: [P2PSIP] Concept draft: Open issues #5 - 8
To: p2psip@ietf.org
Message-id: <002001c75a16$eb7210d0$7205a40a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: AcdZ02KR3e5j9G48QXmiVfZU11kMXwAQCUtwAADW0ZA=
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 68ba2b07ef271dba6ee42a93832cfa4c
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
-- Jiang XingFeng > -----Original Message----- > From: JiangXingFeng [mailto:jiang.x.f@huawei.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:28 AM > To: 'Philip Matthews' > Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] Concept draft: Open issues #5 - 8 > > Hi, Philip: > > Comments are inline! > > -- > Jiang XingFeng > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Philip Matthews [mailto:philip_matthews@magma.ca] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:23 AM > > To: p2psip@ietf.org > > Subject: [P2PSIP] Concept draft: Open issues #5 - 8 > > > > 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. > > > [JiangXingFeng] Basically, I agree with your proposals. In terms of service, I have > something to say. Service is a big concept, and we could define any functions that a > peer could provide as service. So in P2PSIP, we should narrow the scope of service > concept. Maybe we should confine the service which is helpful to SIP like > applications, such as VoIP, IM, presence, etc. > > Another point is that we should differentiate the service provided by the peer itself > and the service provided by the P2PSIP overlay. In draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-03, > we often say peers are providing storage and routing service for other peers. I think > the meaning of storage service, routing service, replication service is different from > the meaning of high level service like stun service, VM service, etc. So, my > suggestion is that we call the service provided by the overlay as function in order to > distinguish these two types of service on the different level. > > > > > > 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!) > > > [JiangXingFeng] What I really concerns is that how the introduction of Service model > could help. My suggestion is that some examples are needed in the new revision to > explain the benefit from the service model. > > > > > > 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". > > > [JIangXingFeng] Good job. This classification makes P2PSIP more like a operable > system. > > > > > > 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?". > > > [JiangXingFeng] Do you mean that if clients reuse or extend SIP protocol, it is no > need to give the SIP entities a new name "client"? right? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > P2PSIP mailing list > > P2PSIP@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list P2PSIP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
- [P2PSIP] Concept draft: Open issues #5 - 8 Philip Matthews
- Re: [P2PSIP] Concept draft: Open issues #5 - 8 Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [P2PSIP] Concept draft: Open issues #5 - 8 Philip Matthews
- [P2PSIP] Re: Concept draft: Open issues #5 - 8 David A. Bryan
- [P2PSIP] Re: Concept draft: Open issues #5 - 8 Philip Matthews
- FW: [P2PSIP] Concept draft: Open issues #5 - 8 JiangXingFeng