Re: [P2PSIP] HIP: optional, mandatory?

[David Barrett <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 11, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008, at 8:23 PM, David Barrett wrote:
>
>> We don't need more options for what we CAN do, we need decisions on  
>> what we WILL do.
>
> Yep - agree.  And what I want to do is standardize something that  
> lets me build deployable interoperable solutions soon. Success for  
> me involves deployments.

100% agree.  That's why I like the HIP layer (whether or not it's  
chartered as I dream):
- P2PSIP builds a decentralized SIP for a fictional "end-to-end"  
internet, and then
- HIP makes that "end-to-end" internet a reality.

This lets us each focus on what we care about, planning to come  
together in the future.  Granted, if they fail, then we're screwed --  
we can't deploy in the real world.  But that's the nature of open  
standards and implementations.  If we don't buy into this ethos and  
instead feel that the only way to do it "right" is to build a custom  
stack from top to bottom, then that doesn't bode well for our faith in  
the IETF.


>>  If we're not considering making HIP mandatory, then let's stop  
>> talking about it and start focusing on those things that *will* be  
>> mandatory.
>
> The P2PSIP WG has made very few decisions since it was formed. IMHO,  
> what we need to do real soon now is pick something as a starting  
> point for a WG document then go and make the decision to change it  
> to be what we want.  Until we do that, my belief is that the WG will  
> make fairly marginal progress.

Agreed.  Every call for more extensibility and more support for more  
plugins just puts another nail in the coffin for a practical, real- 
world P2PSIP.  I mean, if we can't get *anything* working, why should  
we expect to get it working *and* extensible?  Let's get it working  
first, and then worry about extensibility.  In my experience, it's far  
easier to extend something that exists than something that doesn't.


>> That said, I think this HIP discussion is the best thing to happen  
>> in P2PSIP for years.  It seems like the most practical and powerful  
>> solution, the best layering of functionality, and the most feasible  
>> design that I've yet to hear.  Moving the hard P2P code into a  
>> reusable HIP layer makes a lot of sense,
>
> this is way outside anything HIP was charted to do or is working on

Even if that's true, that's not a satisfying answer.  Good design  
should trump IETF charters.  If HIP or P2PSIP needs rechartering, so  
be it.


>> not only for P2PSIP, but for the internet as a whole.  It seems  
>> like a wagon that we should voluntarily and enthusiastically hitch  
>> ourselves to, rather than try to reproduce or compete with it, or  
>> toss it in the overflowing bucket of optional extensions.
>>
>> It seems sensible to have a base HIP layer that either comes pre- 
>> installed with the OS or redistributed by the application (similar  
>> to WinPCap).  (I could even see making a sort of "HIP-lite" self- 
>> contained library that can be linked straight into the application  
>> for when installing a   Then P2PSIP can be one of many HIP-using  
>> applications that are vastly simplified by being insulated from the  
>> gnarly realities of NAT and firewall penetration, mobility, etc.
>>
>> This makes a lot more sense than continually reproducing this  
>> really hard functionality in every application.
>
> Most of the concrete proposals layer the p2p code such that the  
> library that provided the p2p part could be used by other  
> applications. This is a good design but not something you need HIP  
> to accomplish.

Agreed, but HIP seems like as good a place as any.

-david


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