RE: [P2PSIP] RE:

Ed Pimentel wrote:

>Why are we using OpenDHT as an example, when currently OpenDHT method of >putting bits on the wired is not compliant with the drafts being >discussed.

This is a good and also important question that will require some work to answer properly. Please see one alternative:

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

 though I want to make it clear I am not married to this approach or any other submitted so far.

Now that the P2P SIP WG has quite a number of proposals, including the above, I would like to see a paper on the design options and a comparison of the pros and cons of the various concepts.

This is probably the most important decision this WG will make and such a decision deserves a formal comparison paper and thorough discussions.

We may be attached (or even invested in) to one proposal or another, but do we want to fail by rushing into the wrong decision?

What do you all think? Take a hum during the meeting? 
(Paper on design choices)

Thanks, Henry

________________________________________
From: EdPimentl [mailto:edpimentl@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 8:25 AM
To: JiangXingFeng
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] RE:

Why are we using OpenDHT as an example, when currently OpenDHT method of putting bits on the wired is not compliant with the drafts being discussed.
What is the group recommending for those planning on building/coding  (line in the sand) to the emerging standards? CHORD, BAMBOO, KADEMLIA or OpenDHT? 
We do understand that at some point in the future it will be DHT protocol agnostic... and today this is not the case.

Looking for your comments.
Best,
-E
On 3/4/07, JiangXingFeng <jiang.x.f@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi, Henry:
> Your understanding is correct, and I see no reason not to use
> openDHT-like networks (maybe even commercial as intended by its
> developers) either:
>
> 1. A multipurpose global "Internet at the application layer", and/or 
> 2. A bootstrap mechanism for P2PSIP.
>
> A discussion would be very interesting and welcome indeed.

Do you mean that the infrastructure like what OpenDHT provides to provide
service is used to organize P2PSIP overlay and help new nodes bootstrap? 

If my understanding is correct, the OpenDHT should run as stable as
possible, because there will a variety of applications or services will be
built on it. In this case, the quality of nodes making up of OpenDHT is very 
different from peers which are discussed in the current P2PSIP mailing list,
so the design of Peer protocol should change accordingly.

What about your opinions?

--
Jiang XingFeng

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

-- 
Thanks in advance and best regards,

Ed Pimentel
AgileCO
Founder

Mail:   edpimentl[at]gmail.com
IM:     edpimentl [AOL | Jabber | Yahoo | MSN ] 
Voip:   edpimentl [SKype | GoogleTalk ]

Mobile Content Marketing/Management/Digital Delivery
http://mobilecentral.ws

Mobile ( Relevant, Ambient, Location ) based Social Network 
http://TagR.mobi (Alpha)

Mobile Payment - P2P Payment
http://agilepay.ws

Sponsor of P2PSIP  open source [viasip_ng] project
Creating a standards base P2PSIP dSIP infrastructure 
https://sourceforge.net/projects/viasip/
Mailing List viasip_ng@freelists.org 

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