[p2p-sip] Revised Draft Charter for P2PSIP

Roy, Radhika R. RADHIKA.R.ROY at saic.com
Thu Sep 21 15:35:58 EDT 2006

The ONLY reason is this: It is an unsolvable problem.
All IETF WGs have been trying, and have been failing successully!!!
The word UNFORTUNATE is there to discourage for spending too much time for
this technically nonsense problem. That is, p2p-SIP may not be even p2p-SIP
WG anymore at the end of the solution - all fear is this: It might make
p2p-SIP NAT crossing solution as non-p2p-SIP NAT crossing protocol. 
I hope I would be  be wrong! Who knows what is coming out of by SIP,
SIPPING, NSIS, IPSEC, DIAMETER, and others almost after 6-10 years!  Now,
MMUSIC has turned their attention to ICE-xxxxxx versions.
Let us wait for ICE (versions # infinite) to see whether it could be used
for p2p-SP!!! How about this?


From: Michael Slavitch [mailto:slavitch at gmail.com]
Sent: Thu 9/21/2006 2:32 PM
To: Roy, Radhika R.
Cc: David A. Bryan; p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] Revised Draft Charter for P2PSIP

The "NAT is evil" argument is a matter of faith and belief, a moral
statement that has no place in a protocol working group charter.   
Engineering solutions emerge from the judicious study of discernible
reality. NAT exists, therefore it must be dealt with. Period.
>From an engineering standpoint, it creates problems that need to be solved
with solutions that reflect the facts on the ground.
The P2PSIP Working Group must be part of the reality-based community, rather
than part of an ideological community, therefore the working group charter
must distinguish consensus external reality from ideologically created
reality if the working group is to be at all successful.  There is ample
evidence that creating one's own reality despite evidence to the contrary
results in failure. 
Given that, the word "unfortunate" has no place in an engineering document.
By definition it must be struck. 
On 9/21/06, Roy, Radhika R. RADHIKA.R.ROY at saic.com
<mailto:RADHIKA.R.ROY at saic.com>  wrote:

Mike and all:

I am commenting on NATs.

>From IETF point of view, the use of NATs as it is done these days is 

Let us see what had been the history of NAT standardization in the IETF? 

The IETF charter had been to help the "scarcity" of IPv4 addresses (before
IPv6 even been proposed). It was hoped that, by the time IPv6 is 
standardized, there is will be no more requirements of NATs to provide more
address spaces.

Now, people have forgot the original usage of NATs. People are using NATs as
a part of "security" for hiding the configurations behind NATs. It is 
completely an "illusion" to be happy to know that people are "secured" by
using NATs. It is still going on in a mass scale throughout the world, and
no one knows when this will be stopped.

Should the purpose of the NAT standardization be "SECURITY" or "TOPOLOGY
HIDING in the name of security," IETF would NEVER standardized NATs for
these purposes. The rest is history!!!

So, it is UNFORTUNATE so far the MIS-use of NATs is concerned because NATs
are not needed anymore due to shortage of IPv4 addresses or NATs cannot
provide security through hiding configurations.

Therefore, the draft charter is CORRECT in this context to use the word 

Best regards,

More information about the P2p-sip mailing list