[p2p-sip] Revised Draft Charter for P2PSIP
David A. Bryan
bryan at ethernot.org
Thu Sep 21 13:23:02 EDT 2006
It definitely seems clear we need a new name for the latter
"architecture" document. The idea was that the "overview" deliverable
(the first one) was the background/basic framework document, and the
later architecture document (the last deliverable listed) was a "how
to use the tools produced by this group" sort of thing.
Applicability document is going down the right path name-wise. Any
On 9/21/06, Scott W Brim <swb at employees.org> wrote:
> First, I'm hesitant about referring to drafts in the charter.
> RFCs yes, but drafts are evanescent. Second, even assuming it's okay
> to do so, it makes the charter circular.
> > The terminology and concepts draft  explains the terms and
> > concepts used here.
> > This group's primary tasks are to produce:
> > 1. An overview document explaining concepts, terminology,
> > rationale, and illustrative use cases for the remaining work.
> So the charter is based on the terminology and concepts draft as
> fundamental in defining the scope of the work to be done, but the
> first task is to finish defining them (and even possibly package them
> differently). Also the terminology and concepts do make assumptions
> about architecture, and an architecture document is yet another
> output. Circular?
> > The group will identify and require one base P2P algorithm (likely a
> > particular Distributed Hash Table (DHT) algorithm), while allowing
> > for additional optional algorithms in the future.
> Is there a need for the () in the charter?
> > The following topics are excluded from the Working Group's scope:
> > 1. Issues specific to applications other than locating users and
> > resources for SIP-based communications and presence.
> OK as long as "locate" is broadly defined. Allow for "location" to be
> determined "late" depending on the details of the desired
> communication, etc.
> > May 2009 Submit P2PSIP architecture document to the IESG
> > (Standards track)
> If an "architecture" is to be useful then it should be done before, or
> at least at the same time as, the protocols. We will certainly know
> what the architecture is as we do the protocols. So either it can be
> bumped to Sep 2008 if not earlier, or you don't really mean an
> architecture document -- perhaps the architecture will be in the
> overview, and this will be an applicability document?
> p2p-sip mailing list
> p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
More information about the P2p-sip