Subject: FW: [P2PSIP] RE: [P2Prg] RE: [Sipping] Simple SIP usage scenario

From: "Michael Slavitch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 15:16:09 -0400

"Isn't IMS all about everything in the network and the endpoints are
under total control?"

Yes.  However I fear that the flipside is no better, a pure-peer
environment without any control may create a tragedy of the Internet
commons, one that expects something for nothing without boundries or
checks and balances. There is a vast gulf between greedy Stalinist
totalitarianism and doctrinaire anarchy.

"Mobile operators may see the light and adopt P2P, but would it be IMS
as it is defined today?"

Certainly not.  IMS as it stands today will go the way of FDDI and ATM
et al.
Too expensive, too complex, and not enough value.

What a P2P successor could be called depends on who is doing the
marketing.  Gigabit Ethernet isn't coax CDMA either.  Just try buying
a token-ring or FDDI card.   If I had the answers to these questions
they'd be in a set of power-point slides doing the VC samba on Sand
Hill Road.

The mobiles will adopt it under the following circumstances:

1. It puts the issue of recurring revenues to bed long enough for a bond
issue.
2. It permits a level of certainty regarding customer retention.
3. It allows them to offer different services at different prices to
    different people.
4. It allows them to shrink their OPEX enough to make more and charge
less.
5. It keeps E911/DHS/FBI/NSA happy enough.
6. It allows them to do what they do best, bury costs in ongoing
charges and fees.

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

-- 

-----------------------------------------------

This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. 

Any views, opinions and content presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and may not represent those of Objectworld Communications Corp. 

_______________________________________________
P2prg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 12:57:11 -0700

>However I fear that the flipside is no better, a pure-peer environment
>without any control may create a tragedy of the Internet commons, one
>that expects something for nothing without boundries or checks and
>balances.

100% agreement here.

The DHT overlay and SIP part require strong identity: The krypto keys
issued by the owner of the P2P SIP network. Not less but also not more.

To prevent Sybil attacks, the certificate issuer can use various options
that go beyond our topic discussed here.

Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Slavitch [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 2:16 PM
To: [email-masked]; P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: FW: [P2PSIP] RE: [P2Prg] RE: [Sipping] Simple SIP usage
scenario

-- 

This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information, privileged material (including material protected by the
solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute
non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than
the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete
this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not
authorized and may be unlawful. 

Any views, opinions and content presented in this e-mail are solely
those of the author and may not represent those of Objectworld
Communications Corp.

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:58:34 -0700

Actually, I believe Dean's idea makes sense without any server and
ownership - just like in http://openid.net/ 

Could this concept of lack of ownership in http://openid.net/ be applied
to ownerless p2p systems?

Ownerless P2P systems would be a powerful and complementary alternative
to service provider P2P. What do you think?

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:54 PM
To: Dean Willis
Cc: Henry Sinnreich; [email-masked]; P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] RE: [P2Prg] RE: [Sipping] Simple SIP usage
scenario

BTW,

This sounds very much like the a server for nicknames that seems to be a

requirement for chat proposal over in SIMPLE.

	Paul

Dean Willis wrote:
> 
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Henry Sinnreich wrote:
> 
> There are, of course, people interested in "ownerless" P2PSIP
overlays.
> 
> A model of how this might work uses a "first come, first served"
model, 
> something like:
> 
> An "ownerless" overlay exists at overlay.example.org. It uses a 
> distributed file-store model to store public credentials.
> 
> Bob makes himself a self-signed cert.
> 
> Bob uses this self-signed cert to enroll in the overlay, which works
as 
> long as there is nobody else named [email-masked] (first come

> first severd). As a result, Bob's public cert is stored in the
overlay.
> 
> Bob then inserts into the overlay using his private key, which 
> establishes that he is the previously registered Bob.
> 
> And people talk to him.
> 
> Now, nothing says I can't come along and register as Henry, if Henry 
> hasn't already done so. So the names don't really "mean" anything -- 
> they're just index values that are human memorable so you can know
that 
> the Henry you talk to today is the same as the Henry you talked to
last 
> week.
> 
> Now, if the whole overlay resets such that the name-enrollments are 
> lost, everybody gets to re-enroll, and there's a land-rush on being 
> called Henry instead of Bob (or vice-versa).
> 
> -- 
> Dean
> 
>

---

From: "Michael Slavitch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:28:31 -0400

I agree with this given the following caveats:

- Without an owner you need agreement and enforcement amongst peers.
Something has to police, and something has to police the policemen.
- The carriers by contrast offer a feudal mentality where the carriers own
the land and make the laws as well as enforce them.
- History is littered with examples of people reverting to feudalism when
more democratic alternatives fail.
- Unless ownerless P2P systems have strong laws regarding behaviour and
strong security and trust they will fail and people will revert to the
familiar.
- It might be easier to maintain the carrier/kings as toothless figureheads
than attempt a revolution.
- Luckily much like in history the carrier/kings seem content to this fate
as long as they remain wealthy and do no work at all while maintaining
brand.

Regards

Michael

-- 
Michael Slavitch
Ottawa Ontario Canada

---

From: "Beck01, Wolfgang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:52:13 +0200

Henry wrote:
> 
> Actually, I believe Dean's idea makes sense without any 
> server and ownership - just like in http://openid.net/ 
Openid relies on the DNS to get unique user ids, it's not exactly ownerless.

> > called Henry instead of Bob (or vice-versa).
The land-rush is an inevitable result of using a human-memorable name as key. If we
are using something different, the problem will go away. Theoretically, the public
key of a user is a good candidate. In practice, we might use something shorter
for routing (and business cards), like the user name plus some fingerprint of
the public key .

The result of the P2PSIP user location would be a list of candidate pairs,
(IP addresses, public key). The calling UA would pick the IP address with
the public key of the user I wanted to call:

henry?<public key fingerprint of henry sinnreich, adobe>@overlay.example.org
-> [(10.0.0.1, <full public key of henry sinnreich, adobe>),
   (10.1.0.100, <full public key of some other user having the same fingerprint>]
-> send INVITE to 10.0.0.1

If the public keys get signed in the fashion of PGP, the scheme would
be ownerless.

Wolfgang

--
T-Systems Enterprise Services GmbH
Aufsichtsrat: René Obermann (Vorsitzender)
Executive Committee: Lothar Pauly (Vorsitzender)*, Helmut Binder, Albert Henn, Olaf Heyden*, Katrin Horstmann, Ulrich Kemp, Axel Knobe*,
Wilfried Peters*, Dr. Herbert Schaaff*, Zvezdana Seeger*
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main HRB 55933
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt am Main
WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE87523644
*Geschäftsführer gem. § 35 GmbHG