Subject: [p2p-sip] Fwd: Concepts draft: dropping "P2PSIP" in terms

From: philip_matthews at magma.ca (Philip Matthews)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:40:58 -0400

Copying the list, since others need to have input into this decision.

- Philip

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Philip Matthews <philip_matthews at magma.ca>
> Date: October 18, 2006 17:08:45  EDT (CA)
> To: Dean Willis <dean.willis at softarmor.com>, "David A. Bryan"  
> <bryan at ethernot.org>, Eunsoo Shim <eunsoo at research.panasonic.com>
> Subject: Concepts draft: dropping "P2PSIP" in terms
>
> Right now, almost all the terms in the Concepts draft start with  
> "P2PSIP".
> But in practice, everyone drops this.
>
> So I am proposing to blow all these away and say (for example)  
> "Peer-ID" rather than "P2PSIP Peer-ID".
> This is consistent with what I have seen almost everywhere else.
> For example, SIP documents usually talk about a "User Agent", not a  
> "SIP User Agent",
> MPLS documents talk about an "LSP", not an "MPLS LSP",
> the HTTP document talk about a "Get operation", not an "HTTP Get  
> operation", etc. etc.
>
> Comments?
>
> - Philip

---

From: philip_matthews at magma.ca (Philip Matthews)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:47:28 -0400

I didn't express myself well.

I am proposing to replace "P2PSIP Peer-ID" with "Peer-ID"
EVERYWHERE it appears in the document.

And similarly replace "P2PSIP Client Protocol" with "Client Protocol",
"P2PSIP Peer Insertion" with "Peer Insertion", etc. etc.

- Philip

On 18-Oct-06, at 17:39 , David A. Bryan wrote:

> 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.
>
> Besides, if it is there, just leave it.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> On 10/18/06, Philip Matthews <philip_matthews at magma.ca> wrote:
>> So I am proposing to blow all these away and say (for example) "Peer-
>> ID" rather than "P2PSIP Peer-ID".

---

From: bryan at ethernot.org (David A. Bryan)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:56:19 -0400

Personally I like it as is, at least for now with the BOF coming up
and trying to minimize confusion and give us common lingo. Some or
even many of them work without it, but some shortened (say Client
Protocol, particularly) could be very confusing.

David

On 10/18/06, Philip Matthews <philip_matthews at magma.ca> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-sip mailing list
> p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/p2p-sip
>

---

From: swb at employees.org (Scott W Brim)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:30:37 -0400

> "P2PSIP Peer Insertion" with "Peer Insertion", etc. etc.

I think it's important to keep these.  We can drop the "P2PSIP" when
speaking, for now, but we are establishing concept names which will
last a long time and we don't know what's coming.  I dunno, suppose we
have a P2P infrastructure that is used for more than SIP?  Multiple
overlays using the same peers?  Anyway lots of detail when laying a
foundation never never hurts.