Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft

Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com> Tue, 03 February 2015 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1321A19F2 for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:24:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YS6gJRtdS67f for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:24:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5210E1A036E for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:24:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id ey11so97523901pad.7 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 07:24:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=softarmor.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=59bqwIqVuNLD9+TrVLGOshqEgNbozH1UKPQhI2MbHzE=; b=c+KIQKOqa5s6Zr/0ushi1MgiKil0ZH8RJidV4hpmXcZbu3YQGeQxWDpZ+kqIwaAaGI LTvk9IR4Zd6+eq5yndvT8oSTAmRiVCZTCzZXGQOc0wMz1Jqr+NlVDX9gQnVOcPKZyASE EXCoGVHO0r9GPhCPtYPfzgr21iVyOXzcabGRs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=59bqwIqVuNLD9+TrVLGOshqEgNbozH1UKPQhI2MbHzE=; b=gEqIMwKIp6+wsTUy8bs1oARSCb+f1GaDtxF07Qmu/Axx+1MklCJuU6yol7NOvYdB+0 xbqbCnUT9rse2Gnq2llGKFaQso/Na1Oufe2VxS4d/Ox81f+N0bAvXRlr545TGfvrCvwa Vk0SH2FDkhz4aoO7/ETryXbzvIJdUH86VrObtzWrxQw3E7pfr1Fw0z5+opqUVdw5Xsqi tIazmO7NmnOFCG8Rc6q+/7BZ3Kqtq1sy+YW3pgYQ/d3wfi18Zw1GX4j4EUlwOmJHvtK8 g3SCV1M0j+HEZxWF7/kc6mEgVs+VX42MG0HxgIMraGolpq0mfadS3vXiGJ/Y4kncx4cn eiPA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnrdhkKfYFVjQkTyTD/uwsBwtclQGSJYR9HRvvm7U+4NsimgNvPSHOL9PcTNOTARhd4TZo8
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.70.36.99 with SMTP id p3mr38116183pdj.81.1422977042569; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 07:24:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.57.42 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:24:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.57.42 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:24:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADqQgCTk-efY_6SAYb53F5zzR3niSzBFPuevrcWm++sgWeMR-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADqQgCRibXV_xTEmPanFPd=mUH+L2C_WVBixrc5HowKE-K21Gg@mail.gmail.com> <C113765E-E794-45FF-8C11-9523E0D2CB67@neustar.biz> <54D088CA.2060104@ericsson.com> <CADqQgCTPjoYe5acygbx+Re9U_sYTa6JN+VJU2GmQ2BGQAqLWEQ@mail.gmail.com> <54D0DCBE.4040005@ericsson.com> <CADqQgCTk-efY_6SAYb53F5zzR3niSzBFPuevrcWm++sgWeMR-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 09:24:02 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOHm=4sFfPybt649HTVKGbKEpB6LJE9VrXEf9NfLKLN1Td6gxg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
To: David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bfeb37025759e050e30a989"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/uf65r-iGTrH0KrBBs5bnJwB2mbg>
Cc: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>, p2psip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip/>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 15:24:06 -0000

David is my hero.
On Feb 3, 2015 9:14 AM, "David Bryan" <dbryan@ethernot.org> wrote:

> I can iterate next week or week after, and yes, agree it is very close to
> ready for WGLC.
> On Feb 3, 2015 8:35 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" <
> Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> thanks for the quick response! Given the status, I think you can just
>> revise the draft and get the chairs to WGLC it. Do you have an ETA for
>> such a revision?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>> On 03/02/2015 3:43 PM, David Bryan wrote:
>> > 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"
>> > <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com
>> >>
>> > 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 <dbryan@ethernot.org
>> >     <mailto:dbryan@ethernot.org>> 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
>> >     >> P2PSIP@ietf.org <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org>
>> >     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>> >     >
>> >     > _______________________________________________
>> >     > P2PSIP mailing list
>> >     > P2PSIP@ietf.org <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org>
>> >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>> >     >
>> >
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> P2PSIP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>
>