Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft

[David Bryan <[e-mail]>]

I am indeed. It needs one small pass to conform to 6940 language but should
otherwise be good to go. I have in my notes that I was waiting for any
further comments, but the list has been very quiet.
On Feb 3, 2015 2:37 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> what is the status of this draft? Are its authors actively working on it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
>
> On 17/06/2014 8:33 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> I was recently asked to update the concepts draft and discuss the
> important issues. The pass that has been made is largely around normalizing
> the text to be compliant with the terminology of RFC 6940, but it certainly
> will need an additional pass after a few questions to the group:
> >>
> >> To move this draft forward, there are a few open issues/questions:
> >>
> >>    MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-level description
> >>    about proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very long and
> >>    contentious debate about the role of the protocol, and reflected a
> >>    pretense that this was an overlay only for P2PSIP.  That is not
> >>    really true in base anymore (see last paragraph of introduction) and
> >>    the language has been very much genericized in base.  Should we make
> >>    this text more abstract and then use AoR->contact mapping as an
> >>    example of the (original) use?  On a related note, see the last
> >>    paragraph of the Background section -- do we want to reword this?
> >>
> >> (my thought would be to make the text more generic, and mention that
> the AoR->contact mapping is the most popular usage…)
> > Agree
> >
> >>
> >>    OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that documents previous
> >>    decisions made, to preserve the historical debate and prevent past
> >>    issues from being raised in the future, or simply rely on the mailing
> >>    list to address these concerns?
> >>
> >> (I don't think we want to do this. Huge (and largely unneeded) can of
> worms, but it has been in the open issues section for some time and should
> be at least asked of the list)
> > No, we don’t need to do this
> >
> >>
> >>    OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from
> >>    draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired)?  There was
> >>    some interest in doing so in previous versions, but no conclusion was
> >>    reached.
> >>
> >> (given the current stage of the group, I would say these aren't likely
> to be useful anymore, but again, as it is currently listed as an open issue
> in the draft, need to check)
> > Nah, I don’t think it is necessary, or even that useful at this point
> >
> >>
> >> The final open issue is do we want to advance the draft? In discussion
> with the chairs and some folks, it seems the answer is yes, there is useful
> material and we should push the draft out, but I wanted to discuss.
> Assuming there is still interest, I'd also welcome any comments on the
> draft...I'm sure I missed a few spots where it no longer aligns with 6940.
> > I would like to see this finished.
> >
> >>
> >> David
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> P2PSIP mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > P2PSIP mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
> >
>
>