Subject: [p2p-sip] The terms I want to save...

From: philip_matthews at magma.ca (Philip Matthews)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:39:07 -0400

Copying the list, since we really should have this discussion in public.

On 18-Oct-06, at 16:58 , David A. Bryan wrote:

> Assuming we cut all the short versions (be prepared for folks to still
> use them...I'm not going to have the word "P2PSIP" in front of every
> time I say peer or overlay in all my drafts), I really care about
> (some of which I noticed aren't there now):
I am proposing to blow away all these "P2PSIP" prefixes.
See separate e-mail.

> P2PSIP Peer: node
I added the text
           "(Note: The P2P literature often uses the term  "node"  
instead of "peer")"
> P2PSIP Peer-ID: Node-ID
I added the text:
           "(Note: This is often called a "Node-ID" in the P2P
           literature)."

>
> P2PSIP User Agent: P2PSIP UA
The hanging text now reads "P2PSIP User Agent (UA):"

>
> P2PSIP Bootstrap Server: bootstrap peer, bootstrap node
See separate e-mail.

>
> P2PSIP Peer Insertion: peer or node join, peer or node registration
I added the text:
	(Note: In the P2P literature, this operation is often called  
"joining" or
           "registering" with the overlay).

>
> P2PSIP Resource (User) Record Insertion: user registration

I think this one is controversial, since we have not yet resolved the
"resource" vs. "user" debate.

---

From: bryan at ethernot.org (David A. Bryan)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:42:42 -0400

In response to removing P2PSIP prefix in most places in the draft:

Although I don't intend to use the long form in all places in my
*other* drafts, in this one we just agreed to blow away the short form
"Peer-ID" in all the definitions. I think it is really bad to define
P2PSIP Peer-ID, not list Peer-ID as a short form, and then use the
short form anyway. Either we leave all the short versions in the
definitions, or we use the full versions in the text, at least within
this document.

Besides, if it is there, just leave it. I think hacking out existing
text to make it less specific isn't really worth the time.

My 2 cents.

---

From: dean.willis at softarmor.com (Dean Willis)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:02:48 -0500

> I am proposing to blow away all these "P2PSIP" prefixes.

I really hope you don't. If you do, just take my name off the draft  
please.

--
Dean

---

From: bryan at ethernot.org (David A. Bryan)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:36:08 -0400

Philip:

Suspect we are overwhelming the list with minutia here, but since this
discussion thread got moved to the list, I'll leave it here. Sorry if
folks are getting bored with the detail level on this.

The terminology draft currently uses:

In the past I used admission, rather than insertion. I went to change
the term in one of my other drafts, and when I read the modified text
(particular as it talks about challenges and the like), I am actually
increasingly unhappy with insertion vs. admission.

There are security aspects of checking to see if a node should be let
in (for some scenarios), and I prefer something that has the sense of
the action being on the part of the overlay, not the node. The overlay
allows, or "admits" the node to join, rather than the  forceful word
choice of a node "inserting" itself.

I'd at the least like to see as an alternate.

Thoughts?

David

---

From: slavitch at gmail.com (Michael Slavitch)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:16:27 -0400

David;

This is certainly not minutia, it creates implications regarding  the
essence of what the working group is building: networks.

Admit is a more accurate word that is more in line with the
requirements for authentication and security. It also places the onus
of interoperability on the network, not the individual endpoint.

If you admit something, you must accept it how it works.
Correspondingly there are terms of acceptance, which implies that
these terms must be advertised to the entity attempting acceptance.

This not the case in insertion-based schemes. There the onus is moved
to the endpoint to figure out how to get in, which is impossible to
figure out.  A NAT is one such insertion based scheme.  ICE and Skype
are both insertion mechanisms.

Given that "Admit" creates stronger contracts and tighter systems,
eliminating problems down the road.  If there was such a standard NAT
"admit" protocol life would be much easier and the VPN would be
obsolete. "Admit", with terms, does that for P2PSIP.

Regards

M

On 10/19/06, David A. Bryan <bryan at ethernot.org> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-sip mailing list
> p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip
>

---

From: philip_matthews at magma.ca (Philip Matthews)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:32:46 -0400

> I'd at the least like to see as an alternate.

I think you have a good point.
The peer inserting itself will somehow have to show that it is allowed
to do this, and "Insertion" doesn't quite have this connotation.

However, I believe there are also actions that the peer has to take as
well to build its finger table (or whatever), and here "admission"  
doesn't
quite convey that either.

I am thinking that "join" is the right verb, because it implies  
action on the
part of the peer, but the overlay can also challenge. Unfortunately,  
I cannot
find a good noun to go with this verb.

I will somehow flag this in the document. I am starting to think that  
an open
issues section, which lists things we want to fix in the document,
might be a good thing to add.

- Philip