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

From: "Michael Slavitch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:31:19 -0400

From: Michael Slavitch [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:29 PM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: Paul Kyzivat; [email-masked]; P2PSIP Mailing List; Dean Willis
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] RE: [P2Prg] RE: [Sipping] Simple SIP usage scenario

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.

  <http://www.objectworld.com/> 

Michael Slavitch              

Lead, Technology Initiatives

[email-masked]

Regards

Michael

On 4/10/07, Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

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

-- 
Michael Slavitch
Ottawa Ontario Canada 

________________________________

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

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

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:50:01 -0700

Here are a few usage scenarios where ownerless P2P makes sense: 

In emergency situations, during natural or man made disasters, when
disconnected form the Internet, the ownerless p2p may be the life saver.

Also, on the battlefield there is the agreement and strong enforcement
among peers.

Last but not least, a group of fans going to car race or some other
event and wandering around. This may seem a more trivial pursuit but has
some user appeal.

Thanks, Henry

From: Michael Slavitch [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 11:31 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [P2PSIP] RE: [P2Prg] RE: [Sipping] Simple SIP usage scenario

- 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.

 

Michael Slavitch              

[email-masked]

 

Regards

Michael

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,

        Paul

environment
one

more.
overlays.
model,
as

overlay.
that
last

-- 
Michael Slavitch
Ottawa Ontario Canada 

Spam
<http://canitpro-int.objectworld.com/canit/b.php?i=660574&m=31377f6d1b97
&c=s> 
Not spam
<http://canitpro-int.objectworld.com/canit/b.php?i=660574&m=31377f6d1b97
&c=n> 
Forget previous vote
<http://canitpro-int.objectworld.com/canit/b.php?i=660574&m=31377f6d1b97
&c=f> 

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: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:17:52 -0400

> Also, on the battlefield there is the agreement and strong enforcement 

Maybe I'm missing something, but on the battlefield I think I would like 
to distinguish the guys on my side from the guys on the other side. With 
a truly ownerless system I don't think that is supported.

	Paul

---

From: "Wei Gengyu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:40:35 +0800

A scenario of sensor networks in the case of disasters was discussed.
  
Sensors are laid or even dropped from helicopters across fields. 
Each sensor has a ID and associated with GPS-based location infomation. 
Sensors are peers, and the communication between sensors is peer to peer.

Some super peers must be existed to make long-haul transmission possible.

Regards,

Gengyu

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:21:44 -0700

Paul,

You are right. 
On the battlefield the peers would have to be preconfigured with
certificates from the CA.

I meant local configuration MUST be excluded, except some individual
token such as Michael Slavitch is mentioning - maybe a fingerprint
readier, voice identification, etc.

Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 6:18 PM
To: Henry Sinnreich
Cc: Michael Slavitch; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] RE: [P2Prg] RE: [Sipping] Simple SIP usage
scenario

	Paul