Subject: [P2PSIP] draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 17:06:32 -0600

I need to give this a detailed read at some point but I tried reading from the point of view of what is it missing that would make it better more than the point of view of did it get the details right. One thing that came to mind is one of the very early key premises of the WG. The idea that you don't need any centralized control with the possible exception of enrollment. For example, a little bit back Rohan is helping the Canadian Red Cross bring bring up their wireless network in Haiti. (PS - Rohan says Hi). If the red cross employees got credential before they went to Haiti, when they arrived, they could bring up a secure p2psip ring on a local ad-hoc network and communicate to each other with no central servers including no DNS connectivity. Once they got the local wireless network connected back to the main internet - the local ring would automatically merge with the p2psip ring on the main internet and they could communicate with red cross folks back at head office too.

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 07:35:27 +0800

Thanks for taking a look. I agree that as the draft stands, there is
little motivation...see below...

One of the open questions on the slides I want to ask will be if we
want to include the early motivating use cases, the other if we want
to include some of the history of decisions made by the WG (both as
appendices, most likely). Both have currently been removed from the
document (decisions were in there, use-cases were in a previous, now
expired draft, but had been up for incorporation into the draft in the
past) pending WG opinion on the issues.The editors thoughts have gone
back and forth a bit on this over the last few days, but I think we
were now leaning toward including some decision history, and not the
use cases, but perhaps this is a comment that you think it might be
good to have at least some motivation via use cases included.

The case you mention is one of the seminal use cases for P2PSIP from
the early days, and we have all that earlier text, BTW, so if the
group wants to include it, we certainly can. I know you won't be in
Beijing, so your thoughts on those two issues would be good to hear.

Oh, and good to hear from Rohan ;)

Thanks,

David (as individual)

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>