[p2p-sip] Revised concepts draft

[eunsoo at research.panasonic.com (Eunsoo Shim)]

Sathya Narayanan wrote:

>I also think drafts should remain separate for now.
>
>IMHO, we should be focusing on the charter right now; the output documents and their scopes should evolve out of the charter. Discussing the documents and their scopes without the base charter seems a bit premature to me.
>
>  
>
Agreed.
Thanks.

Eunsoo

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Henry Sinnreich <hsinnrei at adobe.com>
>Date: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:00 am
>Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Revised concepts draft
>
>  
>
>>I agree the two drafts should remain separate.
>>
>>Thanks, Henry
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu
>>[p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Bruce Lowekamp
>>Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 11:24 AM
>>To: Eunsoo Shim
>>Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
>>Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Revised concepts draft
>>
>>I think that for now the use-cases draft should remain separate and,
>>if there are significant new use cases proposed to add to it, they
>>should be added.  We should also revise it to reflect the current
>>terminology, of course.  A number of decisions were made about what
>>will be in-scope and out-of-scope at the last ad hoc.  In the process
>>of forming the WG and finalizing the charter, those decisions will be
>>re-examined and formalized/changed.  My understanding is that the
>>use-cases document will need to be trimmed, updated, merged, etc at
>>that point to reflect use-cases that fall within the proposed 
>>scope of
>>the charter.  I think merging it with the terminology draft at this
>>point would be premature.
>>
>>Bruce
>>
>>On 8/21/06, Eunsoo Shim <eunsoo at research.panasonic.com> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I think we need to think about what we look for from documenting use
>>>      
>>>
>>cases.
>>    
>>
>>>In my understanding, the current use case draft focuses on 
>>>      
>>>
>>listing all
>>    
>>
>>>possible (and significant) use cases of P2P SIP. It was an 
>>>      
>>>
>>effort to
>>    
>>
>>>convince people of importance and usefulness of P2P SIP in a 
>>>      
>>>
>>sense. I
>>    
>>
>>>think documenting them has some value at least for a while.
>>>Another motivation for the draft was to help in identifying the use
>>>cases the group should/want to focus on. I am not sure whether 
>>>      
>>>
>>this is
>>    
>>
>>>critical any more considering that the group made a significant
>>>      
>>>
>>progress
>>    
>>
>>>in defining the work items for the initial charter. I wonder what
>>>      
>>>
>>other
>>    
>>
>>>people think about this.
>>>
>>>Since we introduced many new terms in the terminology and concept
>>>      
>>>
>>draft,
>>    
>>
>>>there arised a need for illustration of the terms, in 
>>>      
>>>
>>particular, the
>>    
>>
>>>roles of the architectural components. However, an illustration 
>>>      
>>>
>>of the
>>    
>>
>>>role of particular architectural component like the P2PSIP Overlay
>>>      
>>>
>>Peer
>>    
>>
>>>Protocol does not have to depend on details of specific use 
>>>      
>>>
>>cases. For
>>    
>>
>>>example, it does not require to say whether it is used in a 
>>>      
>>>
>>corporate> network environment or in the global Internet scale. So 
>>I am not sure
>>we
>>    
>>
>>>need to integrate the current use case draft and the terminology and
>>>concept draft.
>>>
>>>What we need is general illusrations of the roles of the 
>>>      
>>>
>>architectural> components in example architectures. Fortunately 
>>there is already a
>>    
>>
>>>draft doing it, even though using different terms. The architecture
>>>described in draft-shim-sipping-p2p-arch-00.txt is almost the 
>>>      
>>>
>>same as
>>or
>>    
>>
>>>at least very close to the concepts in the terminology and concept
>>>draft. The architecture draft is already being revised to use 
>>>      
>>>
>>the same
>>    
>>
>>>terms defined in the terminology and concept draft.
>>>
>>>We might want to keep the terminology and concept draft as a
>>>      
>>>
>>collection
>>    
>>
>>>of the terms and basic concepts with their concise definitions 
>>>      
>>>
>>so that
>>    
>>
>>>it can be referred to in most (possibly all) P2P SIP related drafts.
>>>      
>>>
>>And
>>    
>>
>>>we can collect architecture illustrations in the architecture draft,
>>>possibly listing some architecture variations. Some stuff like a 
>>>      
>>>
>>data> format for user location can be removed from the 
>>architecture draft.
>>    
>>
>>>The final details of what a particular component MAY/SHOULD/MUST do
>>>      
>>>
>>and
>>    
>>
>>>not do will be described in the protocol specification drafts.
>>>Eventually people will come up with lots of creative use cases and
>>>architecture variations we don't think of now.
>>>
>>>My 2 cents.
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>Eunsoo
>>>Scott W Brim wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>On 08/21/2006 10:36 AM, Dean Willis allegedly wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>I'm amenable, but it is possible that the group might think we
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>should
>>    
>>
>>>>>revise the use cases draft using the language of the concepts and
>>>>>terminology draft rather than putting use cases into the concepts
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>and
>>    
>>
>>>>>terminology draft.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the "happy medium" here, folks?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Concepts and terminology make it possible to talk about use 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>cases and
>>    
>>
>>>>have some confidence that we agree on what they actually mean.  Use
>>>>cases clarify the scope and test the C&T to make sure they are 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>useful> >when applied to the real world.  In general for most WGs 
>>I think
>>these
>>    
>>
>>>>two should be together in one draft (call it a "framework").  
>>>>        
>>>>
>>You're> >going to be iterating back and forth anyway, since each 
>>depends on
>>and
>>    
>>
>>>>supports the other.  I think we should try the experiment of 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>putting> >them all in one draft.  If it turns out to be more 
>>confusing than
>>    
>>
>>>>having them separate, we can easily separate them again.
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>p2p-sip mailing list
>>>>p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
>>>>https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>p2p-sip mailing list
>>>p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
>>>https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>p2p-sip mailing list
>>p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
>>https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>p2p-sip mailing list
>>p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
>>https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>