Re: [P2PSIP] Comments to draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-04
Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca> Thu, 08 March 2007 00:02 UTC
Return-path: <p2psip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HP65X-0001KF-As; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:02:31 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HP65W-0001Ie-02 for p2psip@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:02:30 -0500
Received: from mx1-3.spamtrap.magma.ca ([209.217.78.154]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HP65P-0005fc-HO for p2psip@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:02:29 -0500
Received: from mail1.magma.ca (mail1.internal.magma.ca [10.0.10.11]) by mx1-3.spamtrap.magma.ca (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l2802Jvu008761; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:02:21 -0500
Received: from [10.0.1.2] ([24.139.16.154]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail1.magma.ca (Magma's Mail Server) with ESMTP id l2802Ghx017231 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:02:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <67043E463DDBFD4A8087ED940BFF756B01424CBF@BRU0038A.ww018.siemens.net>
References: <67043E463DDBFD4A8087ED940BFF756B01424CBF@BRU0038A.ww018.siemens.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <E29B8EC3-FA55-4CCA-BF71-4D2FABDE8047@magma.ca>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Comments to draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-04
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:02:13 -0500
To: "Willekens, Marc" <Marc.Willekens@siemens.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-magma-MailScanner-Information: Magma Mailscanner Service
X-magma-MailScanner: Clean
X-Spam-Status:
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97c820c82c68af374c4e382a80dc5017
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List <p2psip@ietf.org>
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
Though I agree that the scalability question is very important, I don't think it belongs in the Additional Questions section. The scalability question I think is much more of a "usage scenarios" (or "use-cases") question. - Philip On 7-Mar-07, at 18:30 , Willekens, Marc wrote: > Hi Philip, > About the additional questions, I think the most important is the > scalability. These days, the p2p paradigm is seen as "the solution" > to solve the scalability problem. It's true for the processing > power and memory which is spread out over the p2p network, but the > cost is the additional traffic in the network. The big question is > the stability of the network, certainly when its completely under > control by the end-users. If they make use of unstable end-devices, > and when their p2p network connection is intermittent, then there > could be many required updates in the distributed hash tables. > Maybe we need a kind of "stabilization factor" for each end-device > in order to determine its activity role in the p2p network, i.e. > how much it is allowed to contribute its resources to the p2p > network. Do we need a kind of incentive system so that p2p networks > always strives to a certain optimum? > Br, > Marc. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Matthews [mailto:philip_matthews@magma.ca] > Sent: woensdag 7 maart 2007 23:27 > To: Willekens, Marc > Cc: Dean Willis; P2PSIP Mailing List > Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Comments to draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-04 > > Marc: > > Thanks very much for your comments. > Replies inline. > > - Philip > > On 7-Mar-07, at 10:30 , Willekens, Marc wrote: > >> Hi Dean and other draft authors; >> >> Some comments to your draft: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-willis-p2psip- >> concepts-04.txt >> >> 1. General remark >> Nice rework of this version! The high level description now >> indicates the scope of the P2PSIP which is not restricted to the >> typical SIP registrar functionality. Maybe, it's better to indicate >> this also in the abstract section which still indicates a more >> restrictive scope. > > Thanks. >> >> 2. Specific remarks >> [Page 4], 2 High Level Description, §5 >> "The distributed database may need to store information about >> services." >> Shouldn't this be extended with the resources provided for these >> services? I can assume not all nodes will have the same kind of >> processing power, memory and transport bandwidth. This information >> is required to allow an optimal spreading of the information in the >> p2p overlay network. The distribution algorithm has to take this >> information into account. > > The wording here was intended to be vague on the details > of what would be stored. There is a little bit more details later > about services in section 5.1. > > Section 6.1 explicitly raises the issue of how to select between > multiple peers offering the same service. However, we do not > specify a solution, since we don't think the WG has come to > any consensus on this. In fact, one of the proposals is that > the WG _not_ standardize how this is done. > > > >> >> [Page 4], 2 High Level Description, §6 >> Some discussion about the name for P2PSIP-peer and P2PSIP client: >> The client gives the impression of a client/server concept which is >> in contradiction with the distributed p2p model. Of course, a >> client/server access architecture can be used to access the p2p >> network, but then, it's maybe better to talk about a normal SIP >> client because the P2PSIP overlay network is in fact unknown and >> invisible to the user. > > Yup. Hence the document says (section 4) > > Note > that the term client does not imply that this node is a SIP > UAC. > Some have suggested that the word 'client' be changed to > something > else to avoid both this confusion and the implication of a > client- > server relationship. > >> When the scope is p2p and having a client which is not providing >> the resources in an active way to the p2p network, but when it is >> however making use of p2p functionality to get and put information >> in the overlay network, then we can start thinking about >> differentiating between active P2PSIP peers and passive P2PSIP peers. > > Thanks for the terminology suggestion. > Let's see what happens with the client concept. If they are kept, > then this might be a good terminology change. > >> >> [Page 5], 2 High Level Description, §10 >> I agree to the extension to different address spaces. I think it's >> a mandatory requirement to allow the p2p overlay network on a world- >> wide scale basis over different domain spaces. If it's bound to a >> specific address space only, then it are the end-users contributing >> to network resources without having a real additional benefit out >> of it. It only solves the problem of the domain owner to reduce its >> own OPEX and CAPEX by moving this towards the end-user. >> However, when it works over different address spaces (domains), >> then a world-wide service provider can use the p2p concept in his >> own overlay network in a more optimal way and distribute the data >> in function of the location where it is needed the most. > > OK. > >> >> [Page 13], 5.2 Using the distributed database, §1 >> Why have you taken out the examples from the -03 version? In >> version 03, it was indicated who will setup the actual session >> after finding the location from the distributed database. For that >> version 03, I have the remark of one additional case which can also >> be considered, i.e. in §1.4.2, (P2PSIP client contacts P2PSIP >> Peer), the UA client C is setting up the session. The additional >> case could be the setup of the session by the Peer Q. In that way, >> the "passive" peer can take advantage of its "active" peer part in >> the network to execute the SIP invite protocol. > > The examples from the -03 version were removed because: > a) They ignored the presence of NATs (e.g., you usually cannot > just send an INVITE to a peer that is directly behind a NAT), AND > b) They all assumed the first option of section 5.2 and we wanted > to talk about the other options, AND > c) They all assumed the first alternative of section 5.5. > > The examples in the -04 version do not make these assumptions, > and (in my opinion) give much more detail. > > What we gave up was examples about clients. > As the person who wrote most of the text in this revision, I will say > that it is REALLY REALLY difficult to say > much about clients right now, since almost nothing is decided. > Trying to write text about clients that is true under all the > alternative > views of clients that have been proposed is very painful. > > I guess we could have added some examples in the section that > talks about clients. > >> >> [Page 21], 6 Additional questions >> The document indicates the use of a p2p network over different >> address spaces. However, there can still be many different separate >> p2p networks. Don't we have to think about inter-p2p domain >> communication? Can a user belong to different p2p overlay networks >> at the same time? What's the influence on very big p2p networks >> when end-users have a very dynamic behavior for enrolment and >> inserting their peer node in the network? What's the practical >> limit for the amount of peers? Does it really scale world-wide or >> do we have to think about smaller p2p networks interconnected with >> each other? >> > > Thanks for the questions. > We will think about including some of them in the next revision. > > If we assume that we want to keep this section fairly important, > then which questions do you think are the most important? > > > - Philip > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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] Comments to draft-willis-p2psip-concepts… Willekens, Marc
- RE: [P2PSIP] Comments to draft-willis-p2psip-conc… Willekens, Marc
- Re: [P2PSIP] Comments to draft-willis-p2psip-conc… Philip Matthews
- RE: [P2PSIP] Comments to draft-willis-p2psip-conc… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [P2PSIP] Comments to draft-willis-p2psip-conc… Philip Matthews
- Re: [P2PSIP] Comments to draft-willis-p2psip-conc… Charlie Eunsoo Shim
- [P2PSIP] Re: Comments to draft-willis-p2psip-conc… Dean Willis