Subject: [P2PSIP] P2P in mobile phone market

From: "Jing Cao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:22:02 +0800

Recent Nokia N95 has been disabled of its SIP based VOIP capability by
Orange and Vodafone, refer to
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/18/n95_crippled/.  An Orange customer
services advisor explained: "We Believe it allows you to make calls that
won't be routed over our network and therefore Orange had decided not to
include that functionality on out N95".

My questions are:

1. If P2P is enabled over mobile devices, is there any chance that the
operator can charge the customer for his/her P2P data transfer?

2. Further, is it possible for the operator to utilize the P2P technique
inside their own network?   Current mobile market is operator dominant, they
can put their revenu concern above the customer's request. But I guess
operator can restrict the mobile device to access only operator's SIP server
and transfer data only via operator's network … Is this possible??

Any discussion are welcome J

I do hope P2P can be used in our mobile devices!!
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: "Victor Pascual Ávila" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:01:59 +0200

Inline,
> operator can charge the customer for his/her P2P data transfer?

intelligence remains at end-points, but.. what about if a p2psip device
wants to call to pstn? Here, from my point of view, operator role is
important. Operator could implement p2psip gateways in order to establish
connections to pstn, 3g or other networks.
So, 'internal' calls could be performed with no operator action (think as in
sip calling directly to an IP and not to a sip-id), and 'external' calls are
performed using operator infrastructure (p2psip-gwToPstn,p2psip-gwToSip and
so on...)

> inside their own network?    Current mobile market is operator
> dominant, they can put their revenu concern above the customer's request.
> But I guess operator can restrict the mobile device to access only
> operator's SIP server and transfer data only via operator's network … Is
> this possible??
>
I strongly think it's possible. Telcos could use p2psip as a signaling
protocol to implement distributed apps, grid computing, etc... SDP allows
it.
Imagine a distributed process core network composed by 'n' elements where,
using a DHT and information consistency, firmware/configuration/etc updates
could be performed element-by-element. You don't need to stop service by
maintenanece, you just could stop few elements to update them and still use
the 'old-configuration' ones.

Now think about most voip service providers, 'internal calls' (from
user1@domainprovider1 to user2@domainprovider1) use to be for free, they
revenue is based on monthly fees and billing calls to pstn or other
networks. So, using p2psip they will reduce significally the use of their
resources (internal calls will be perfomed end-to-end directly, with no
central proxy neither user locator) and they could implement, as told
before, gateways, media conversion systems and so on for other networks
interconnection

Thank you,
-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila

mail:[email-masked]
sip:[email-masked]
fon user: 223364
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

---

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:44:13 +0200

> operator can charge the customer for his/her P2P data transfer?  

Yes, of course.  They charge for Internet access -- broadband if backed
by wi-fi, mobile (slurp!) otherwise.

> inside their own network?

Usually operators buy network equipments from vendors. If vendors were
able to build less expensive equipments using P2PSIP (e.g. replacing IMS
elements with P2P-SBCs), well, operators would immediately buy them.

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

---

From: "Yao Wang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:35:58 +0800

I don't think only the charge of Internet access is attractive enough for
operators to replace their IMS equipments with P2PSIP devices. Because
within the IMS, all sessions, services, and contents can be accounted.
Obviously, the amount of these bills is much attractive to operators than
the Internet access fee.

In my opinion, for the sake of making P2PSIP successful in the future,
business aspects should be considered when its protocols are standardized.
The peer protocol and client protocol to be defined should make it possible
to control sessions and services to some extent and collect some kind of
information on user's sessions in P2PSIP.

The reasons are as follows.

Firstly, accounting and management for P2PSIP will make users' experience
better. Frequent search failures and unreliable services are unacceptable
for end users. To avoid these problems, P2PSIP operators should be able to
collect information on users' activities and their required QoS levels in
order to meet different requirements of each user adjusting network
resources. In addition, if charging mechanism is provided, more service
providers will be attracted to the P2PSIP field, making services in P2PSIP
become richer.

Secondly, management may be mandatory for P2PSIP operators. When P2PSIP is
used for large-scale commercial operation, government or judiciary is likely
to setup rules requesting operators to monitor sessions of users. Thus, it
may be mandatory to control and record users’ sessions to some extent.

To draw a conclusion, I think management and accounting mechanisms need to
be introduced into P2PSIP.

I think my words focus too much on non-technical issues. Apologize in
advance if I had gone beyond the task of this WG. :)

Sincerely yours, 
 
Yao Wang

-----Original Message-----
From: Enrico Marocco [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 6:44 PM
To: Jing Cao
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] P2P in mobile phone market

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

---

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:05:05 +0200

> Obviously, the amount of these bills is much attractive to operators than

I 100% agree.  If subscribers agree too, it's done and we don't need
P2PSIP any more (at least my employer doesn't).

> providers will be attracted to the P2PSIP field, making services in P2PSIP

Isn't this exactly what IMS provid^H^H^Hmises?

> may be mandatory to control and record users’ sessions to some extent.

As far as I know, in Europe and US, regulation asks the providers to be
able to intercept communications when they are _terminated_ on telephony
networks.  Maybe one day governments will mandate legal interception
also for communications both originating and terminating over the
Internet, but, once again, they will first have to ban encryption to
make it effective.

> advance if I had gone beyond the task of this WG. :)

Oh no, really, it's always entertaining to have this kind of discussions ;-)

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

---

From: "Alex Gakuru" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:28:34 +0300

> Oh no, really, it's always entertaining to have this kind of discussions ;-)
Well then, I am courageous enough to make my first-ever post and I hope
you find it interesting, thanks

"Wireless Net Neutrality: Cellular Carterfone and Consumer Choice in
Mobile Broadband"
Tim Wu, Professor, Columbia University School of Law
February 15, 2007

<http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/wireless_net_neutrality>

Alex

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:37:08 -0700

Yao Wang wrote:

> Because within the IMS, all sessions, services, and contents can be 
> accounted.

Disappointing experiences have proven to operators that accounting for a
call costs more than the call itself. For this reason most telephone
services I know of are flat rate.

As for mobile phones, the value will migrate from charging per call and
duration to charging for mobile IP access where many more lucrative
services can be offered, that just voice. Except the racket of charging
for roaming, but in many countries, the regulator has stepped in to
limit the roaming charge abuses. On the Internet mobility is a native
property.

Also, in our time when high quality wideband voice and video is free
from PC to PC (or SIP/Skype phone to SIP/Skype phone), the business
model of charging for usage may no longer be valid. Telephony will IMHO
end up in many cases to be a free add-on to other services, for example
allowing buyers and sellers to talk and see each other when conducting a
commercial transaction, say at an auction house. 

> their required QoS levels in order to meet different requirements of
each > user adjusting network resources

QoS has developed mostly into a DOS attack on the IP flows from
competitors and it makes no sense for sure for VoIP where only the
cut-outs matter (as in your digital cell phone) and practically nothing
else. Such cut-outs are due to congestion and are best monitored in the
IP routers.

> government or judiciary is likely
> to setup rules requesting operators to monitor sessions of users.

There are so many types of sessions possible that monitoring every
application by itself does not make sense any more. The IP flows can
however be monitored at the IP level. 

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Yao Wang [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 7:36 AM
To: 'Enrico Marocco'; 'Jing Cao'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] P2P in mobile phone market

I don't think only the charge of Internet access is attractive enough
for
operators to replace their IMS equipments with P2PSIP devices. Because
within the IMS, all sessions, services, and contents can be accounted.
Obviously, the amount of these bills is much attractive to operators
than
the Internet access fee.

In my opinion, for the sake of making P2PSIP successful in the future,
business aspects should be considered when its protocols are
standardized.
The peer protocol and client protocol to be defined should make it
possible
to control sessions and services to some extent and collect some kind of
information on user's sessions in P2PSIP.

Firstly, accounting and management for P2PSIP will make users'
experience
better. Frequent search failures and unreliable services are
unacceptable
for end users. To avoid these problems, P2PSIP operators should be able
to
collect information on users' activities and their required QoS levels
in
order to meet different requirements of each user adjusting network
resources. In addition, if charging mechanism is provided, more service
providers will be attracted to the P2PSIP field, making services in
P2PSIP
become richer.

Secondly, management may be mandatory for P2PSIP operators. When P2PSIP
is
used for large-scale commercial operation, government or judiciary is
likely
to setup rules requesting operators to monitor sessions of users. Thus,
it
may be mandatory to control and record users' sessions to some extent.

To draw a conclusion, I think management and accounting mechanisms need
to
be introduced into P2PSIP.

Sincerely yours, 
 
Yao Wang

-----Original Message-----
From: Enrico Marocco [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 6:44 PM
To: Jing Cao
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] P2P in mobile phone market

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:56:35 -0700

*       Telcos could use p2psip as a signaling protocol to implement distributed apps, grid computing, etc...

Yes, this very true and also easy to implement by operators. In one scenario for example all they have to do is to place the peer software into residential and enterprise access routers.

Thanks, Henry

________________________________

From: Victor Pascual Ávila [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 5:02 AM
To: Jing Cao
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] P2P in mobile phone market

Inline,

1. If P2P is enabled over mobile devices, is there any chance that the operator can charge the customer for his/her P2P data transfer? 

intelligence remains at end-points, but.. what about if a p2psip device wants to call to pstn? Here, from my point of view, operator role is important. Operator could implement p2psip gateways in order to establish connections to pstn, 3g or other networks.
So, 'internal' calls could be performed with no operator action (think as in sip calling directly to an IP and not to a sip-id), and 'external' calls are performed using operator infrastructure (p2psip-gwToPstn,p2psip-gwToSip and so on...)

	2. Further, is it possible for the operator to utilize the P2P technique inside their own network?    Current mobile market is operator dominant, they can put their revenu concern above the customer's request. But I guess operator can restrict the mobile device to access only operator's SIP server and transfer data only via operator's network ... Is this possible??

I strongly think it's possible. Telcos could use p2psip as a signaling protocol to implement distributed apps, grid computing, etc... SDP allows it.
Imagine a distributed process core network composed by 'n' elements where, using a DHT and information consistency, firmware/configuration/etc updates could be performed element-by-element. You don't need to stop service by maintenanece, you just could stop few elements to update them and still use the 'old-configuration' ones.

Now think about most voip service providers, 'internal calls' (from user1@domainprovider1 to user2@domainprovider1) use to be for free, they revenue is based on monthly fees and billing calls to pstn or other networks. So, using p2psip they will reduce significally the use of their resources (internal calls will be perfomed end-to-end directly, with no central proxy neither user locator) and they could implement, as told before, gateways, media conversion systems and so on for other networks interconnection

Thank you, 
-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:15:24 -0400

In many countries the current rules require intercept of PSTN only,
but several (including the US) have made it clear that all calls (even
IP to IP) will eventually need to be interceptable (if that is a real
word...).

David

-- 
David A. Bryan
[email-masked]
+1.757.565.0101 x101
+1.757.565.0088 (fax)
www.SIPeerior.com

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:37:29 +0200

In the EU all calls could be subject to lawful intercept. PSTN and
mobile telephony are obvious, but in many EU countries is obligatory to
allow LI for VoIP.
Also, ISPs are required to provide the necessary LI capbilities,
delivering the IP Flow to a LEA.

Colin Pons
Senior Architect
WSO Innovation Management

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: David A. Bryan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Verzonden: vrijdag 20 april 2007 16:15
Aan: Enrico Marocco
CC: [email-masked]
Onderwerp: Re: [P2PSIP] P2P in mobile phone market

David

than
standardized.
possible
experience
unacceptable
P2PSIP
> > to setup rules requesting operators to monitor sessions of users.
Thus, it

-- 
David A. Bryan
[email-masked]
+1.757.565.0101 x101
+1.757.565.0088 (fax)
www.SIPeerior.com

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:41:19 -0400

LI in p2p is harder than LI in a normal VoIP system.  If something like a
carrier deploys a p2psip overlay, it will have to figure out how to meet its
LI requirement, and we're not going to provide any special facility to help
(there is an RFC about that subject).

The ISP delivering IP flows to LEAS is at a level below our work, and would,
of course deliver p2psip signaling and media.  Our security recommendations
may impact a LEA's ability to tap.

LI is not part of our charter.

Brian

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:37 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 05:14:47 -0700

I agree with Brian on all points here. 

Since LI will most certainly come up again, the WG will have to
articulate clearly what P2P SIP will and will not do for LI and why.

> ISPs are required to provide the necessary LI capabilities,

P2P flows can be correlated to some degree at the IP level, but cannot
necessarily be understood even if copies of the media flows are
delivered to the LEA.

The back door provision for the now infamous Clipper chip has long been
discarded. Some documentation on the history of the back door
discussions and the issues involved may be useful here as well.

Last but not least, P2P SIP (just like SIP) is not meant as a
replacement for existing TDM telephony systems. I am bringing this up,
since it is often a forgotten item, ignored or simply not understood.

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:41 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] P2P in mobile phone market

LI in p2p is harder than LI in a normal VoIP system.  If something like
a
carrier deploys a p2psip overlay, it will have to figure out how to meet
its
LI requirement, and we're not going to provide any special facility to
help
(there is an RFC about that subject).

The ISP delivering IP flows to LEAS is at a level below our work, and
would,
of course deliver p2psip signaling and media.  Our security
recommendations
may impact a LEA's ability to tap.

Brian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:15:25 +0200

I largely agree with both Brian and Henry. For ISPs LI is just a matter
of reality, P2P SIP wouldn't change any of it.

Having said that, LEA and congress men (lawmakers) likely have a
different opinion, requiring special facilities for tapping of voice and
other communication. Do expect the LI obligations that apply now for TDM
will also be applied to Internet communication services (even if those
have nothing to do with TDM voice). Not having *special* intermediaries,
such as Application servers or proxies, has an impact on those
obligations (a special problem will be to only tap traffic from specific
users).

I sympathize with the exclusion of LI from the P2P SIP chapter, if not
for the many uncertainities to which obligations to solution should
comply.

Colin Pons

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 24 april 2007 14:15
Aan: Brian Rosen; Pons, C.A. (Colin); [email-masked];
[email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]
Onderwerp: RE: [P2PSIP] P2P in mobile phone market

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:41 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];

Brian

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:41:48 -0400

It's always ugly when old laws, and old law makers, apply old thinking to
new technologies.  LI is one of those cases.  LI should never have focused
on the telephony aspects of VoIP; it should have focused on the packet
stuff, and treated the telephony as one of many services of interest on the
pipe.  

If you take the p2psip ideas we have in mind to the logical extreme, where
the only "service" is an enrollment server and possibly one or more
bootstrap nodes, there is no infrastructure to do a pen trace (signaling
tap), let alone a media trace.  LI as seen by a "carrier" in a p2psip
environment can be looked at as pretty much impossible.  The lawmen can
scream all they want, but p2p is p2p and not p2server.

I don't think we're going to do anything to be more helpful to such
"carriers".  I don't think it's possible to do anything short of making
every peer have the kind of backdoor Henry alluded to.  We're sure not going
to standardize that kind of thing.

It's possible that the law makers and law enforcers will take a while to
deal with the reality here.  But what can they do?  Ban p2psip?
What they can do is deal with it at the packet level.  That's a reasonable
solution.  The encryption part may hamper them, but again, that's the
reality of modern Internet communications: increasingly using modern crypto
to protect transactions and flows.

Remember my "what do we want p2psip to mean" thread?  One of the items was
"all signaling and all media encrypted all the time".  That will frustrate
LI also, but it is the right thing to do for p2psip.  

Brian

> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:15 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:46:21 -0700

This is probably out of scope for the P2P SIP WG, but it is useful to
inform ISPs and lawmakers that "interception" of communications poses
first of all the danger to law enforcement agencies themselves to
infiltration and of physical danger to its agents.

Interception is also unacceptable to the financial industry as a whole
and to most enterprise IT organizations.

Various commercial products claim to be useful for legal interception,
but a closer look show they can be easily circumvented given there are
so many types of communications possible, besides the basic
consideration that LI may be self defeating.

I suggest we find who in the IETF is dealing with these issues (they
have been discussed a memorable plenary some time ago) and keep a strong
liaison to the work on LI.

Maybe new research on backdoor security will change all this. Please
share any information if/when it becomes available, so we can apply it
to P2P SIP. 

Thanks, Henry 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:15 AM
To: Henry Sinnreich; [email-masked]; [email-masked];

Colin Pons

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 24 april 2007 14:15
Aan: Brian Rosen; Pons, C.A. (Colin); [email-masked];

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:41 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];

Brian

---

From: "Alex Gakuru" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:37:27 +0300

I know Fred Baker has done quite much on LI and written a briefing on
the subject.
He would be quite resourceful.

Thanks

Alex

---

From: "Rob Welbourn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:07:59 -0400

In the US, the CALEA regulations address both PSTN-interconnected VoIP
service providers and broadband service providers.  Even if
communications traffic is not directed to/from the PSTN, it can be
subject to wiretapping simply by virtue of traveling over an Internet
access pipe, in which case the legal responsibility falls to the ISP to
perform the wiretapping.  Note, however, that there is no obligation for
the ISP to decrypt the traffic -- which it can't do in any event, if the
traffic travels over a P2P overlay that the ISP doesn't control.

Rob Welbourn

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:37 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] P2P in mobile phone market

Colin Pons
Senior Architect

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: David A. Bryan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Verzonden: vrijdag 20 april 2007 16:15
Aan: Enrico Marocco
CC: [email-masked]
Onderwerp: Re: [P2PSIP] P2P in mobile phone market

David

---

From: "Victor Pascual Ávila" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:46:16 +0200

Hello all,
Are we discussing a service or just an underlying technology?
Traditional telephony service (in Spain called STDP -something like 'public
telephony service'-) is just a service independently from the used
underlying technology.
So it's a fact that all-like-telephony VoIP _services_ will have to address
interception and _emergency calls routing_ issues, but I think it should be
addressed by operators in order to include p2psip-based services to their
portfolio.

Sorry if it was already discussed,

Thank you,
Victor Pascual
-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:35:19 -0400

Just so we’re clear: p2psip is unlikely to have any problems meeting
emergency call requirements.  The things that make p2psip different from
regular sip don’t impact emergency calls, especially in the IETF emergency
call work (ecrit).

Legal Intercept is another matter.  The differences in p2psip do challenge
LI regimes currently in place.  As I said before, to the extent LI moves to
being a packet interception rather than a call interception regime, p2psip
will become just another packet stream.  It is decidedly NOT just another
telephone call.

Agree that it will always be a local carrier problem to meet local emergency
call and local legal intercept requirements.  It is, of course, quite a
challenge to define "local" on the Internet. 

Brian

________________________________________
From: Victor Pascual Ávila [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:46 PM
To: Rob Welbourn
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Lawful Intercept [was P2P in mobile phone market]

Hello all,

Thank you,
Victor Pascual
-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila

mail:[email-masked]
sip: [email-masked]
fon user: 223364

---

From: "Wei Gengyu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:25:18 +0800

Hi, all, 

I put a question that is related to the subject. 

Some carriers concern how to monitor and measure the traffic of P2P applications.
But current deplyed method, generally, are based on analysis traffic patterns, 
something like that in the Infocom'2004 paper "Transport Layer Identification of P2P Traffic" by Thomas K. et. al. 

For simplifying the measurement, it seems rational that an explicit P2P identifier is defined in transport layer protocol header. 
Are there anyworks or recommended standards about this.
Are there any other methods (RFC or draft rfcs) to identify P2P transportation. 

Gengyu

---

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:36:53 +0200

> Are there any other methods (RFC or draft rfcs) to identify P2P transportation. 

In theory it would be great to have one defined and adopted.  In
practice, I'm afraid if it existed, it would be an April's fool (see RFC
3514) ;-)

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:40:09 -0400

Personally, I think such an effort isn't needed and in fact doesn't
really make sense.

The assumption of that would be that somehow P2P traffic is treated
differently than client server. P2P and Client Server are mechanisms.
Interest in this idea arose because the earliest use of P2P was
filesharing, which many administrators wanted to restrict from their
network. For that particular case, it could make some sense.

As time goes on, however, P2P will be a mechanism, like client server,
that is used for many types of applications. Today, a flag of "this is
client-server" would make no sense -- treating web traffic, VoIP, SSH
and NFS the same because they all happen to be client-server, for
example. As P2P is used as a technique for various types of
applications, a flag saying it is P2P will evolve to become just as
meaningless.

My 2 cents,

David

-- 
David A. Bryan
[email-masked]
+1.757.565.0101 x101
+1.757.565.0088 (fax)
www.SIPeerior.com

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:41:09 -0400

> For simplifying the measurement, it seems rational that an explicit P2P
> identifier is defined in transport layer protocol header.
Every application protocol has a recognizable header, but usually we use the
port number to know to look for a particular application protocol.  Of
course, we sometimes use a protocol like HTTP as a transport protocol for
multiple applications protocols, and it can be hard to see the difference
between one use of HTTP and another.

We don't know yet if p2psip will need a separate port number from sip.  If
we don't, it may be hard to recognize p2psip from regular sip.

> Are there anyworks or recommended standards about this.
No
> Are there any other methods (RFC or draft rfcs) to identify P2P
No

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:18:50 -0400

> network. For that particular case, it could make some sense.

Yup. File-sharing programs like UUCP ("Unix-to-Unix Copy") from the  
late 1970s
and a protocol for e-mail called SMTP (RFC 821) published in 1982 in  
which
e-mail addresses originally had to specify the hop-by-hop path from  
the sending machine
to the receiving machine.

P2P technology has been around for a while ...

- Philip

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:34:45 -0500

I like Brian's take on this topic. Can we address lawful intercept in the 
Requirements and (possibly) the Concepts and Terminology drafts, so we can 
be sure we agree and (one would hope) avoid discussing the topic again in 
the future?

Thanks,

Spencer

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:35 PM
Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] Lawful Intercept [was P2P in mobile phone market]

Just so we're clear: p2psip is unlikely to have any problems meeting
emergency call requirements.  The things that make p2psip different from
regular sip don't impact emergency calls, especially in the IETF emergency
call work (ecrit).

Brian

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:07:15 -0500

On Apr 26, 2007, at 10:34 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> I like Brian's take on this topic. Can we address lawful intercept  
> in the Requirements and (possibly) the Concepts and Terminology  
> drafts, so we can be sure we agree and (one would hope) avoid  
> discussing the topic again in the future?

No. We shall make no considerations for lawful intercept in protocol  
design.

It's just Out of Scope. We don't need to say anything else.

--
Dean

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:54:03 -0700

> Can we address lawful intercept in the Requirements

I am not sure there is space to dedicate to all PSTN-style items that
don't make sense on the Internet. 

For example: If we discuss why marking p2p, then also which type of p2p
exactly does it apply, etc.

What about QoS? (Remember it's a DOS attack on the competition's VoIP)
What class of QoS? What's the definition of QoS classes? :-)
How does Skype work without QoS? (Woops!)

What about service definitions recently discussed ad nauseam recently
here on a list?

I suggest some references to the architectural principles of the
Internet would be just adequate. And to specify that P2P is for
broadband.

What do you think?

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:35 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Lawful Intercept [was P2P in mobile phone market]

I like Brian's take on this topic. Can we address lawful intercept in
the 
Requirements and (possibly) the Concepts and Terminology drafts, so we
can 
be sure we agree and (one would hope) avoid discussing the topic again
in 
the future?

Thanks,

Spencer

Just so we're clear: p2psip is unlikely to have any problems meeting
emergency call requirements.  The things that make p2psip different from
regular sip don't impact emergency calls, especially in the IETF
emergency
call work (ecrit).

Legal Intercept is another matter.  The differences in p2psip do
challenge
LI regimes currently in place.  As I said before, to the extent LI moves
to
being a packet interception rather than a call interception regime,
p2psip
will become just another packet stream.  It is decidedly NOT just
another
telephone call.

Agree that it will always be a local carrier problem to meet local
emergency
call and local legal intercept requirements.  It is, of course, quite a
challenge to define "local" on the Internet.

Brian

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:32:44 -0500

Based on discussions with Dean, I'm not making my suggestion clear.

I'm not suggesting that we discuss all PSTN concepts, only that (based on 
RFC 2804) we know what the answer for lawful intercept is, for P2PSIP, and 
that it might be helpful to write "this is out of scope" someplace where 
people would see it.

Thanks,

Spencer

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:40:50 -0700

Yes, you are right!

> it might be helpful to write "this is out of scope" someplace where 
> people would see it.

Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:33 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Lawful Intercept [was P2P in mobile phone market]

I'm not suggesting that we discuss all PSTN concepts, only that (based
on 
RFC 2804) we know what the answer for lawful intercept is, for P2PSIP,
and 
that it might be helpful to write "this is out of scope" someplace where

people would see it.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 21:35:55 -0700

Keep in mind anything we do here would have to be consistent  with  
RFC 2804.

Cullen - with my AD hat on.

---

From: "Wei Gengyu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 13:14:43 +0800

I agree discussions in this group should be within the scope of subjects defined by the WG.

But some fact we musk know, 
LI is not a carrier-specific, or contry specific feature, it was defined by CCITT, now ITU-T.
3GPP also defined LI in its 3G related documents.
 
IETF, as an international standards body, could have its position of wirestapping or LI,
and this WG should work with the same position of RFC2804.
But, as RFC2804 is about  wirestapping or LI,  it could not be understood as anything or all concepts related to PSTN. 

Regards,

Gengyu