Subject: [P2PSIP] Next steps on draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-04

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:26:53 -0500

Dear P2PSIP Concepts and Terminology draft authors,

I'm looking at draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-04 and seeing

9.  Open Issues

   Here are some open issues in this document:

   1.  The word "service" is being overloaded to refer both to what the
       overlay provides (distributed location service, distributed
       transport service) and what an individual peer or client
       provides.  How can we fix this?

   2.  Does P2PSIP provide a distributed location service or an
       alternative mechanism to RFC 3263?  The answer seems to be both,
       but what is the relationship between these?

Does this look like your current open issues list, post-Prague? I'm almost 
sure we have an open issue about clients, for instance...

How do you/we plan to move forward on this draft?

Thanks,

Spencer 

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

---

From: "Eunsoo Shim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:53:04 -0400

The authors and the chairs are discussing about designating one person as
the editor of the draft. Once the editor is designated, I think the authors
and the editor are going to work on those issues.

>        but what is the relationship between these?

The function described in RFC3263 is a subset of the distributed location
service, I believe.

> How do you/we plan to move forward on this draft?
Thanks.

Eunsoo

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:29:20 -0400

But don’t let that stop you from sending text (to the list preferably, or to
the authors).

Brian

________________________________________
From: Eunsoo Shim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Spencer Dawkins
Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Next steps on draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-04

9.  Open Issues

Thanks.

Eunsoo

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:51:22 -0500

>       provides.  How can we fix this?

I can give it a try -- will be looking at the next round of editing.

>       but what is the relationship between these?

The distributed location service is an alternative to RFC 3263.

> Does this look like your current open issues list, post-Prague? I'm  
> almost sure we have an open issue about clients, for instance...
>

Good question. Top of my to-do list (after figuring out how to feed  
myself and pay my creditors) is assembling he list of things I want  
to tackle in the next rev.

> How do you/we plan to move forward on this draft?

I'll take the token for the next editing pass.

It has been suggested that we do something like a wiki or issue  
tracker for capturing and tracking open issues. I'm planning an OS  
upgrade on the softarmor site, so I might roll in wiki support when I  
do that.

--
Dean