[p2p-sip] My notes on draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-01
eunsoo at research.panasonic.com
Thu Sep 28 10:38:13 EDT 2006
One can put the Proxy functionality and Registrar functionality into a
They can be separate, too.
Figure 3 and 4 in draft-shim-sipping-p2p-arch-00.txt show how Registrar
Peer/Client and Proxy Peer/Client can enable interoperation between a UA
Peer/Client and CS SIP UAs.
According to the terminology style of draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-01,
P2P Proxy in the first draft is Proxy Peer/Client and P2P Registrar is
David A. Bryan wrote:
> I was thinking that an adaptor might be an entity that had more than
> just proxy -- we also specify a registrar in that same section. For a
> true C/S node to work, it would need to be able to do lookups and
> We need to make some clarifications to the terminology draft.
> On 9/28/06, Spencer Dawkins <spencer at mcsr-labs.org> wrote:
>> ... I'm still working on precision here ...
>> I may have misunderstood this point in the original draft, but I thought the
>> Proxy Peer was a *SIP* Proxy Peer - roughly, providing what I called
>> "Interaction with CS-SIP" in http://www.p2psip.org/P2PUseCases.php.
>> But, looking back at draft-willis-p2psip-concepts-01 more closely, I find
>> 6. Proxy: A peer or client that accepts SIP requests, resolves the
>> next hop or hops using the routing information of the P2PSIP
>> Overlay, and passes the request on towards the next hop.
>> If the Proxy Peer is a *P2PSIP* Proxy Peer, that's fine - but what should I
>> call the node providing "Interaction with CS-SIP"?
>>> Doesn't the Proxy Peer do a similar function?
>>> We have Proxy Peer in the diagram(s).
>>> David A. Bryan wrote:
>>>> I don't believe that adaptor node made it into the terminology draft,
>>>> but I'm fine with using it as a label if others are comfortable. (it
>>>> just never happened to come up in that discussion).
>> p2p-sip mailing list
>> p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
> p2p-sip mailing list
> p2p-sip at cs.columbia.edu
More information about the P2p-sip