Re: [P2PSIP] new draft: draft-zangrilli-p2psip-whysip-00

["Eric Cooper" <[e-mail]>]

I believe this draft is proposing that SIP is a good choice for the Peer protocol.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it says anything about the Client protocol (or even if Clients exist).  I'm using the term "Clients" as described in the concepts draft.

SIP may have a bunch of baggage that people would like to deprecate and perhaps we could leave some of it out if/when SIP is used as a Peer protocol (I'm thinking UDP support), but I don't know that we can do anything about early media.  Media is not really what the peer protocol is about.  It's about user/resource location.

It sounds like you're interested in SIP 3.0, but I don't think this WG is really the vehicle for that, since our charter says that "Session management, messaging, and presence functions are performed using conventional SIP".

I do think it would be great if we could get existing 3261 UAs to access the user/resource location service of P2PSIP.  We could do this by 

1) coupling a P2PSIP Peer with a 3261 Proxy/Registrar; and/or
2) adding a P2PSIP Client to an existing 3261 UA.

I personally prefer option 1, but even if we select option 2, *and* we decide that SIP is a good P2PSIP Client protocol, that doesn't mean that we can do anything about the 3261 usage of SIP for making VoIP calls.  Note that it's possible to select option 2 without using SIP as the Client protocol.  I believe http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sip/draft-singh-p2p-sip-01.txt proposes something like option 2.  In this case, would you and Dean also advocate changes to SIP?

Best Regards,

Eric.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Rosen" <[e-mail]>
To: "'Dean Willis'" <[e-mail]>; "'Bruce Lowekamp'" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "'P2PSIP Mailing List'" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:30 PM
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] new draft: draft-zangrilli-p2psip-whysip-00


>I think this is a point worth spending some time on.
> 
> We can take the position that we want as many EXISTING sip clients to be
> conforming p2psip clients, in which case we probably don't want to have any
> restrictions on those clients.  If they are 3261 compliant, they are p2psip
> compliant.  We could require some other RFCs if all or at least most
> EXISTING sip clients did them.
> 
> If we step off that particular bandwagon and say "oh, no, actually, we need
> this teeny weenie change in your SIP client", then Dean, and several of us
> would like to say if you aren't going to take a sip client as-is, then we
> would like to say more than a few things about the p2psip client.  Things
> like:
> No forking
> No UDP
> No early media
> 
> And a few choice others.  Probably deletions only, nothing new.
> 
> PLEASE do not whine to me about how little work your teeny weenie change is
> to the existing client.  I think that either sip, as is, is the client
> protocol, or it isn't.  If it isn't, then we have some things to say...
> 
> I suspect that we'll end up with sip, as is, is the client protocol.  More
> is the pity, but it's probably where we will end up.  I'd like a chance to
> make p2psip more appropriate to the problem at hand, and less dependent on
> the problem of compatibility to the PSTN and a few mistakes made early
> before we knew better.
> 
> Brian
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:07 PM
>> To: Bruce Lowekamp
>> Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] new draft: draft-zangrilli-p2psip-whysip-00
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Bruce Lowekamp wrote:
>> 
>> > There has been some recent traffic on the list and in some of the
>> > drafts about the choice of sip or not-sip as the Peer Protocol for
>> > p2psip.  Marcia and I thought that we would try to organize our
>> > thoughts on why SIP is the right choice for a Peer Protocol and to
>> > address some of the concerns that have been expressed about it.  (We
>> > refer directly to draft-baset-p2psip-p2pcommon-01, which seems to
>> > present a good organized list of concerns about SIP as the Peer
>> > Protocol.)
>> 
>> My major concern is that SIP-as-it-exists is complicated and makes my
>> head hurt. It also fails to address the transited-node security
>> problem, which is a major problem in some P2P architectures (where
>> random peers get to fondle your message as it goes by).
>> 
>> The sipsec: model does seem to fix this security problem, and if were
>> adopted exclusively, might well fix some of the other complexity
>> issues (like switching from UDP to TCP on command so that you can
>> receive a large MESSAGE).
>> 
>> --
>> Dean
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2PSIP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip