[p2p-sip] Revised Draft Charter for P2PSIP
eunsoo at research.panasonic.com
Thu Sep 21 13:27:55 EDT 2006
I see the problem of 'being circular' in referring to the drafts.
Well, things are not happening strictly sequentially here for P2P SIP
I believe it is because P2P SIP is one of major innovations rather than
a small extension of any existing IETF protocol. So even establishing
agreeable terminology is not a trivial task. Neither is establishing
agreeable architecture description. Then we have a problem in
identifying what protocols we are going to design.
One possible approach is chartering only for terminology, concepts, and
architecture, and so except the protocols.
Another possible approach is reaching a quite ROUGH agreement on the
terminology and concept, identifying the protocols to design and writing
the charter. In this approach, the terminology and so on need to be
reviewed and refined (or reworked) by the working group to be formed.
Well, we took the second approach and here we are. I think it was a good
and practical approach for the P2P SIP case.
The authors of the charter draft put references to the draft to avoid
confusion about the newly introduced terminology.
One solution is removing the reference section and somehow making sure
future readers of the charter know that there are such reference
documents. I don't know how to achieve the second part but I think it is
not a bad idea if it is important to avoid the 'circularity' problem.
Regarding the architecture document, first please take a look at David
Bryan's response to Enrico's comments about the architecture document.
Anyway usually major work and discussion are done much before than
submission to IESG. So later target does not mean we will have nothing
when we work on the protocol specifications. In any case I think we can
make the target date earlier as you suggested.
Scott W Brim 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