Subject: [p2p-sip] Revised Draft Charter for P2PSIP

From: RADHIKA.R.ROY at saic.com (Roy, Radhika R.)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:53:17 -0400

Hi, Scott and all:
 
A couple of points are as follows:

1.	

	References of p2p-SIP drafts in the charter are perfectly OK. Drafts
are not RFCs, and can be modified by the WG as needed based on the charter.
For now, these drafts are providing some guidelines to make the objectives
of the charter clear. These are good pointers because we have done a good
amount of discussions based on these drafts to form the WG in the first
place. Otherwise, people will not get any reference to start with, and all
of our valuable discussions will almost be lost without getting any
reference pointers.
2.	

	The term "architecture" seems to be very problematic because there
is no "precise" standard in the IETF what is meant by "architecture." Some
may say that it is the "p2p protocol arch." Others may say it is the "p2p
network configurations arch." Others may say it is the "protocol,
interfaces, and network arch" combining the CS SIP and p2p-SIP network so
that p2p-SIP overlay arch will work as the top most network with all details
of anything and everything.

What I suggest is this:

Let the concept and other p2p-SIP draft deal with protocol and some sort of
high-level view of networking (as can be seen in CS SIP RFCs and other IETF
RFCs) diagrams that have been used so far will be appropriate without being
bogged down to defining "p2p-SIP Architecture" per se.

Best regards,

Radhika

  _____  

From: p2p-sip-bounces at cs.columbia.edu on behalf of Scott W Brim
Sent: Thu 9/21/2006 12:20 PM
To: Dean Willis
Cc: p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu; David A. Bryan
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Revised Draft Charter for P2PSIP

First, I'm hesitant about referring to drafts in the charter.
RFCs yes, but drafts are evanescent.  Second, even assuming it's okay
to do so, it makes the charter circular.

  > The terminology and concepts draft [2] explains the terms and
  > concepts used here.

and

  > This group's primary tasks are to produce:
  >
  > 1. An overview document explaining concepts, terminology,
  > rationale, and illustrative use cases for the remaining work.

So the charter is based on the terminology and concepts draft as
fundamental in defining the scope of the work to be done, but the
first task is to finish defining them (and even possibly package them
differently).  Also the terminology and concepts do make assumptions
about architecture, and an architecture document is yet another
output.  Circular?

> The group will identify and require one base P2P algorithm (likely a
> particular Distributed Hash Table (DHT) algorithm), while allowing
> for additional optional algorithms in the future.

Is there a need for the () in the charter?

> The following topics are excluded from the Working Group's scope:
>
> 1. Issues specific to applications other than locating users and
> resources for SIP-based communications and presence.

OK as long as "locate" is broadly defined.  Allow for "location" to be
determined "late" depending on the details of the desired
communication, etc.

> May 2009      Submit P2PSIP architecture document to the IESG
> (Standards track)

If an "architecture" is to be useful then it should be done before, or
at least at the same time as, the protocols.  We will certainly know
what the architecture is as we do the protocols.  So either it can be
bumped to Sep 2008 if not earlier, or you don't really mean an
architecture document -- perhaps the architecture will be in the
overview, and this will be an applicability document?

swb