From nobody Tue Feb 3 00:37:37 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50AE1A871B for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 00:37:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uaVHnGF9yyG2 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 00:37:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 517AE1A8710 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 00:37:33 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79116d000000fec-b6-54d088cbaf9f Received: from ESESSHC012.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A6.25.04076.BC880D45; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 09:37:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.36.87] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 09:37:31 +0100 Message-ID: <54D088CA.2060104@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 10:37:30 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rosen, Brian" , David Bryan References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7pjgshBru2yFlMO3mZ2WLS38/s FktunmF0YPZ4/O0Ps8eSJT+ZPHY0PGcOYI7isklJzcksSy3St0vgyljx4wJTwWSJiq+PnzI1 MLYLdzFyckgImEhsWneZGcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAEUaJ34s3MUM4qxgl+hZvYwKp4hXQlrh7 +QF7FyMHB4uAisTRzZIgYTYBC4ktt+6zgNiiAlESs88/YIUoF5Q4OfMJWFxEIFBi+e5z7CA2 s4C8xJPOD4wgtjDQmC2nn7ND7GpmlFi7/CVYM6eAvcTz6fNZIRoMJI4smsMK09y8dTbY1UJA 9yx/1sIygVFwFpJ9s5C0zELSsoCReRWjaHFqcXFuupGRXmpRZnJxcX6eXl5qySZGYBAf3PLb agfjweeOhxgFOBiVeHg3WF4IEWJNLCuuzD3EKM3BoiTOa2d8KERIID2xJDU7NbUgtSi+qDQn tfgQIxMHp1QDY/2xqn+WGwQFfs9TuiW0ca9/wpRd+j3bFihbXedMFdjpe+veT5eYnaovK//7 Tl2wPm7v76+rTrNlPWBMYstLX3HAaur+pyJmD2Pb1jvYbPeQttb5P++G9tIDlZ6rJ8rK35nS 8ovPea39NsFtf/9NyzPIPqTbsauR8/bp1A8vrzLuimUVYPh9cq8SS3FGoqEWc1FxIgAWxwU2 QwIAAA== Archived-At: Cc: P2PSIP WG Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 08:37:35 -0000 Hi, what is the status of this draft? Are its authors actively working on it? Thanks, Gonzalo On 17/06/2014 8:33 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote: > > On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan wrote: > >> I was recently asked to update the concepts draft and discuss the important issues. The pass that has been made is largely around normalizing the text to be compliant with the terminology of RFC 6940, but it certainly will need an additional pass after a few questions to the group: >> >> To move this draft forward, there are a few open issues/questions: >> >> MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-level description >> about proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very long and >> contentious debate about the role of the protocol, and reflected a >> pretense that this was an overlay only for P2PSIP. That is not >> really true in base anymore (see last paragraph of introduction) and >> the language has been very much genericized in base. Should we make >> this text more abstract and then use AoR->contact mapping as an >> example of the (original) use? On a related note, see the last >> paragraph of the Background section -- do we want to reword this? >> >> (my thought would be to make the text more generic, and mention that the AoR->contact mapping is the most popular usage…) > Agree > >> >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that documents previous >> decisions made, to preserve the historical debate and prevent past >> issues from being raised in the future, or simply rely on the mailing >> list to address these concerns? >> >> (I don't think we want to do this. Huge (and largely unneeded) can of worms, but it has been in the open issues section for some time and should be at least asked of the list) > No, we don’t need to do this > >> >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from >> draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired)? There was >> some interest in doing so in previous versions, but no conclusion was >> reached. >> >> (given the current stage of the group, I would say these aren't likely to be useful anymore, but again, as it is currently listed as an open issue in the draft, need to check) > Nah, I don’t think it is necessary, or even that useful at this point > >> >> The final open issue is do we want to advance the draft? In discussion with the chairs and some folks, it seems the answer is yes, there is useful material and we should push the draft out, but I wanted to discuss. Assuming there is still interest, I'd also welcome any comments on the draft...I'm sure I missed a few spots where it no longer aligns with 6940. > I would like to see this finished. > >> >> David >> _______________________________________________ >> P2PSIP mailing list >> P2PSIP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > P2PSIP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > From nobody Tue Feb 3 05:43:44 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 394B41A006B for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:43:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7rawKSlE1QGr for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:43:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-f54.google.com (mail-wg0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 364D51A005F for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:43:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id b13so44523444wgh.13 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 05:43:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=B/Go2ghG1h97qZL1rrBmv6PK4HvqpDRzQ3WqT0A1RQ0=; b=aFAeifrRx/TAvYUIGBs5lSPTyDTCaGZLJG+egfEMfzzX3QNYVkzhRMeT039YDVHuSB MwVIrJkvEebKATgx+SUaKLihHK+MaLtFhdVDONbyhuB8aNd1Kay8ZBLsVsEf2wsNsXbB +qnnCGWllmPqspTzPsc45/ruAURrEr5Dm23ICc0n85iVWhfkbiOl5Mh60EUenX5RSSAr ewXUfEuAijy60/NNaisXYL+qRF1ArTMDr8NgP80Tlrn6+DfprNOXT/Ol1qjlEcpqmyuU rfsH4MSPUNzsbUsPbjQqzJOtbOso4dUKC6lQXZ4bMj2Db6wvRa0Y/lhKP2gC1D35KAYT 1uYw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnoOgFTVLs3HTGnx2Hp1R+z1+cVuxBZc855aFlEeKx179/bxCBHR8hhWjWoID5SlOMflqkZ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.108.41 with SMTP id hh9mr4470663wjb.25.1422971018903; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 05:43:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.217.79 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:43:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.217.79 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:43:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54D088CA.2060104@ericsson.com> References: <54D088CA.2060104@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:43:38 -0600 Message-ID: From: David Bryan To: Gonzalo Camarillo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf10ac01b9f7f050e2f4264 Archived-At: Cc: "Rosen, Brian" , P2PSIP WG Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 13:43:43 -0000 --047d7bf10ac01b9f7f050e2f4264 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am indeed. It needs one small pass to conform to 6940 language but should otherwise be good to go. I have in my notes that I was waiting for any further comments, but the list has been very quiet. On Feb 3, 2015 2:37 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" wrote: > Hi, > > what is the status of this draft? Are its authors actively working on it? > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo > > On 17/06/2014 8:33 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote: > > > > On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan wrote: > > > >> I was recently asked to update the concepts draft and discuss the > important issues. The pass that has been made is largely around normalizi= ng > the text to be compliant with the terminology of RFC 6940, but it certain= ly > will need an additional pass after a few questions to the group: > >> > >> To move this draft forward, there are a few open issues/questions: > >> > >> MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-level description > >> about proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very long and > >> contentious debate about the role of the protocol, and reflected a > >> pretense that this was an overlay only for P2PSIP. That is not > >> really true in base anymore (see last paragraph of introduction) an= d > >> the language has been very much genericized in base. Should we mak= e > >> this text more abstract and then use AoR->contact mapping as an > >> example of the (original) use? On a related note, see the last > >> paragraph of the Background section -- do we want to reword this? > >> > >> (my thought would be to make the text more generic, and mention that > the AoR->contact mapping is the most popular usage=E2=80=A6) > > Agree > > > >> > >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that documents previous > >> decisions made, to preserve the historical debate and prevent past > >> issues from being raised in the future, or simply rely on the maili= ng > >> list to address these concerns? > >> > >> (I don't think we want to do this. Huge (and largely unneeded) can of > worms, but it has been in the open issues section for some time and shoul= d > be at least asked of the list) > > No, we don=E2=80=99t need to do this > > > >> > >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from > >> draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired)? There was > >> some interest in doing so in previous versions, but no conclusion w= as > >> reached. > >> > >> (given the current stage of the group, I would say these aren't likely > to be useful anymore, but again, as it is currently listed as an open iss= ue > in the draft, need to check) > > Nah, I don=E2=80=99t think it is necessary, or even that useful at this= point > > > >> > >> The final open issue is do we want to advance the draft? In discussion > with the chairs and some folks, it seems the answer is yes, there is usef= ul > material and we should push the draft out, but I wanted to discuss. > Assuming there is still interest, I'd also welcome any comments on the > draft...I'm sure I missed a few spots where it no longer aligns with 6940= . > > I would like to see this finished. > > > >> > >> David > >> _______________________________________________ > >> P2PSIP mailing list > >> P2PSIP@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > > _______________________________________________ > > P2PSIP mailing list > > P2PSIP@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > > --047d7bf10ac01b9f7f050e2f4264 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am indeed. It needs one small pass to conform to 6940 lang= uage but should otherwise be good to go. I have in my notes that I was wait= ing for any further comments, but the list has been very quiet.

On Feb 3, 2015 2:37 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo&= quot; <Gonzalo.Camaril= lo@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi,

what is the status of this draft? Are its authors actively working on it?
Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 17/06/2014 8:33 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote:
>
> On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org> wrote:
>
>> I was recently asked to update the concepts draft and discuss the = important issues. The pass that has been made is largely around normalizing= the text to be compliant with the terminology of RFC 6940, but it certainl= y will need an additional pass after a few questions to the group:
>>
>> To move this draft forward, there are a few open issues/questions:=
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-lev= el description
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 about proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very = long and
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 contentious debate about the role of the protocol, an= d reflected a
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 pretense that this was an overlay only for P2PSIP.=C2= =A0 That is not
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 really true in base anymore (see last paragraph of in= troduction) and
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 the language has been very much genericized in base.= =C2=A0 Should we make
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 this text more abstract and then use AoR->contact = mapping as an
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 example of the (original) use?=C2=A0 On a related not= e, see the last
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 paragraph of the Background section -- do we want to = reword this?
>>
>> (my thought would be to make the text more generic, and mention th= at the AoR->contact mapping is the most popular usage=E2=80=A6)
> Agree
>
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that document= s previous
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 decisions made, to preserve the historical debate and= prevent past
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 issues from being raised in the future, or simply rel= y on the mailing
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 list to address these concerns?
>>
>> (I don't think we want to do this. Huge (and largely unneeded)= can of worms, but it has been in the open issues section for some time and= should be at least asked of the list)
> No, we don=E2=80=99t need to do this
>
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired= )?=C2=A0 There was
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 some interest in doing so in previous versions, but n= o conclusion was
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 reached.
>>
>> (given the current stage of the group, I would say these aren'= t likely to be useful anymore, but again, as it is currently listed as an o= pen issue in the draft, need to check)
> Nah, I don=E2=80=99t think it is necessary, or even that useful at thi= s point
>
>>
>> The final open issue is do we want to advance the draft? In discus= sion with the chairs and some folks, it seems the answer is yes, there is u= seful material and we should push the draft out, but I wanted to discuss. A= ssuming there is still interest, I'd also welcome any comments on the d= raft...I'm sure I missed a few spots where it no longer aligns with 694= 0.
> I would like to see this finished.
>
>>
>> David
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2PSIP mailing list
>> P2PSIP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> P2PSIP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>

--047d7bf10ac01b9f7f050e2f4264-- From nobody Tue Feb 3 06:35:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3811A0469 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 06:35:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sm0tsJv28YRS for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 06:35:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DC871A040C for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 06:35:45 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79fc6d000001087-32-54d0dcbf232a Received: from ESESSHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 42.B6.04231.FBCD0D45; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 15:35:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.36.87] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 15:35:43 +0100 Message-ID: <54D0DCBE.4040005@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 16:35:42 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Bryan References: <54D088CA.2060104@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7+OxdCDDrfiltMO3mZ2WLS38/s FktunmF0YPZ4/O0Ps8eSJT+ZPHY0PGcOYI7isklJzcksSy3St0vgyjj7tY+9YJ1ixYo5F9ga GP+KdzFyckgImEi8O36ZBcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAEUaJe4sfsEI4qxglVt1uYexi5ODgFdCW WLWtFqSBRUBF4s27JkYQm03AQmLLrftgg0QFoiRmnwfp5QQqF5Q4OfMJC0iriICqxPaTUiBh ZgFPiauXjzOB2MJAY7acfs4OseoFo8SN121gCU6BQInfM5aA9TILaEqs36UP0Ssv0bx1NjOI LQR0zfJnLSwTGAVnIdk2C6FjFpKOBYzMqxhFi1OLi3PTjYz1Uosyk4uL8/P08lJLNjECw/fg lt+6OxhXv3Y8xCjAwajEw7vB8kKIEGtiWXFl7iFGaQ4WJXFeO+NDIUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRfFF pTmpxYcYmTg4pRoYCw7arZCZkaL9e73zCZ83IVeucfNNX62RaVJU8XpBr2CczlQD0a8Nd7VW qBRrb3Hl1pfNWTztSHXIRvvsLZkf3mqJX12/SFTKlPf9o62tx/6f49iQwy4jtPpy/dvpJolR PAfauOWu8ITfbjO4sIaxOvWZPku85oa2ver7zt1dmvJDX1j40tQ/SizFGYmGWsxFxYkArtFZ jUACAAA= Archived-At: Cc: "Rosen, Brian" , P2PSIP WG Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:35:54 -0000 Hi David, thanks for the quick response! Given the status, I think you can just revise the draft and get the chairs to WGLC it. Do you have an ETA for such a revision? Thanks, Gonzalo On 03/02/2015 3:43 PM, David Bryan wrote: > I am indeed. It needs one small pass to conform to 6940 language but > should otherwise be good to go. I have in my notes that I was waiting > for any further comments, but the list has been very quiet. > > On Feb 3, 2015 2:37 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" > > > wrote: > > Hi, > > what is the status of this draft? Are its authors actively working > on it? > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo > > On 17/06/2014 8:33 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote: > > > > On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan > wrote: > > > >> I was recently asked to update the concepts draft and discuss the > important issues. The pass that has been made is largely around > normalizing the text to be compliant with the terminology of RFC > 6940, but it certainly will need an additional pass after a few > questions to the group: > >> > >> To move this draft forward, there are a few open issues/questions: > >> > >> MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-level > description > >> about proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very long and > >> contentious debate about the role of the protocol, and reflected a > >> pretense that this was an overlay only for P2PSIP. That is not > >> really true in base anymore (see last paragraph of > introduction) and > >> the language has been very much genericized in base. Should > we make > >> this text more abstract and then use AoR->contact mapping as an > >> example of the (original) use? On a related note, see the last > >> paragraph of the Background section -- do we want to reword this? > >> > >> (my thought would be to make the text more generic, and mention > that the AoR->contact mapping is the most popular usage…) > > Agree > > > >> > >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that documents previous > >> decisions made, to preserve the historical debate and prevent past > >> issues from being raised in the future, or simply rely on the > mailing > >> list to address these concerns? > >> > >> (I don't think we want to do this. Huge (and largely unneeded) > can of worms, but it has been in the open issues section for some > time and should be at least asked of the list) > > No, we don’t need to do this > > > >> > >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from > >> draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired)? There was > >> some interest in doing so in previous versions, but no > conclusion was > >> reached. > >> > >> (given the current stage of the group, I would say these aren't > likely to be useful anymore, but again, as it is currently listed as > an open issue in the draft, need to check) > > Nah, I don’t think it is necessary, or even that useful at this point > > > >> > >> The final open issue is do we want to advance the draft? In > discussion with the chairs and some folks, it seems the answer is > yes, there is useful material and we should push the draft out, but > I wanted to discuss. Assuming there is still interest, I'd also > welcome any comments on the draft...I'm sure I missed a few spots > where it no longer aligns with 6940. > > I would like to see this finished. > > > >> > >> David > >> _______________________________________________ > >> P2PSIP mailing list > >> P2PSIP@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > > _______________________________________________ > > P2PSIP mailing list > > P2PSIP@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > From nobody Tue Feb 3 07:14:12 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E0DA1A040C for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:14:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id avYyyl2xodgW for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:14:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com (mail-we0-f175.google.com [74.125.82.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD1F11A0065 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:14:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id p10so45620511wes.6 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 07:14:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=fmVrYBmnHoXI0TBx6xBZOIZpuzI/7nJhbMPZAGnZ9qc=; b=NpbVU0+zzKJnZvnZerpEVt2mDPWPE5eTWwYXGNt15t5L5tcZxW9o1hoZHEYshpLFtV RF0yrN49hbEeBBALAhkSRYXtEcMUTfs7AM1I5XlIfpOFSZwsViI0JY3L4cXVRsfQdWLh pXORdLZukqfovCQXGC6lCXgzihAGcvYSuR1J5AyQobb2NHq+hfLe+5ElM7lrLY6lHv8S QPnTRAQ0T/er0Lzxoqf0uejjrmC4ROgptq0mqIwTxLi/QXw4gYD50l3QuJg/rN7aV/iL mM6ml/0aSgHjp1yGF+WjYU9hiLEN8O7C3ISuKEc7Drn3nghV/FRxy/tQ8A1QPa2XfEWK jLLw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmCcJPaj6FysO9VlZxKx/UnSfDHyaf/kTRYlf8AaIOBhPq4xeUqoVYUJpQ1rzA+0SgXAmRe MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.220.7 with SMTP id ps7mr53957681wjc.84.1422976445250; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 07:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.217.79 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.217.79 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:14:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54D0DCBE.4040005@ericsson.com> References: <54D088CA.2060104@ericsson.com> <54D0DCBE.4040005@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 09:14:05 -0600 Message-ID: From: David Bryan To: Gonzalo Camarillo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1b4248b163f050e30857d Archived-At: Cc: "Rosen, Brian" , P2PSIP WG Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 15:14:10 -0000 --001a11c1b4248b163f050e30857d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I can iterate next week or week after, and yes, agree it is very close to ready for WGLC. On Feb 3, 2015 8:35 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" wrote: > Hi David, > > thanks for the quick response! Given the status, I think you can just > revise the draft and get the chairs to WGLC it. Do you have an ETA for > such a revision? > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo > > On 03/02/2015 3:43 PM, David Bryan wrote: > > I am indeed. It needs one small pass to conform to 6940 language but > > should otherwise be good to go. I have in my notes that I was waiting > > for any further comments, but the list has been very quiet. > > > > On Feb 3, 2015 2:37 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" > > = > > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > what is the status of this draft? Are its authors actively working > > on it? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Gonzalo > > > > On 17/06/2014 8:33 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan > > wrote: > > > > > >> I was recently asked to update the concepts draft and discuss th= e > > important issues. The pass that has been made is largely around > > normalizing the text to be compliant with the terminology of RFC > > 6940, but it certainly will need an additional pass after a few > > questions to the group: > > >> > > >> To move this draft forward, there are a few open issues/question= s: > > >> > > >> MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-level > > description > > >> about proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very long and > > >> contentious debate about the role of the protocol, and > reflected a > > >> pretense that this was an overlay only for P2PSIP. That is n= ot > > >> really true in base anymore (see last paragraph of > > introduction) and > > >> the language has been very much genericized in base. Should > > we make > > >> this text more abstract and then use AoR->contact mapping as = an > > >> example of the (original) use? On a related note, see the la= st > > >> paragraph of the Background section -- do we want to reword > this? > > >> > > >> (my thought would be to make the text more generic, and mention > > that the AoR->contact mapping is the most popular usage=E2=80=A6) > > > Agree > > > > > >> > > >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that documents previo= us > > >> decisions made, to preserve the historical debate and prevent > past > > >> issues from being raised in the future, or simply rely on the > > mailing > > >> list to address these concerns? > > >> > > >> (I don't think we want to do this. Huge (and largely unneeded) > > can of worms, but it has been in the open issues section for some > > time and should be at least asked of the list) > > > No, we don=E2=80=99t need to do this > > > > > >> > > >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from > > >> draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired)? Ther= e > was > > >> some interest in doing so in previous versions, but no > > conclusion was > > >> reached. > > >> > > >> (given the current stage of the group, I would say these aren't > > likely to be useful anymore, but again, as it is currently listed a= s > > an open issue in the draft, need to check) > > > Nah, I don=E2=80=99t think it is necessary, or even that useful a= t this > point > > > > > >> > > >> The final open issue is do we want to advance the draft? In > > discussion with the chairs and some folks, it seems the answer is > > yes, there is useful material and we should push the draft out, but > > I wanted to discuss. Assuming there is still interest, I'd also > > welcome any comments on the draft...I'm sure I missed a few spots > > where it no longer aligns with 6940. > > > I would like to see this finished. > > > > > >> > > >> David > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> P2PSIP mailing list > > >> P2PSIP@ietf.org > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > P2PSIP mailing list > > > P2PSIP@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > > > > > --001a11c1b4248b163f050e30857d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I can iterate next week or week after, and yes, agree it is = very close to ready for WGLC.

On Feb 3, 2015 8:35 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo&= quot; <Gonzalo.Camaril= lo@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi David,

thanks for the quick response! Given the status, I think you can just
revise the draft and get the chairs to WGLC it. Do you have an ETA for
such a revision?

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 03/02/2015 3:43 PM, David Bryan wrote:
> I am indeed. It needs one small pass to conform to 6940 language but > should otherwise be good to go. I have in my notes that I was waiting<= br> > for any further comments, but the list has been very quiet.
>
> On Feb 3, 2015 2:37 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo"
> <Gonzalo.Camarill= o@ericsson.com <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>>
> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Hi,
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0what is the status of this draft? Are its authors a= ctively working
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on it?
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Thanks,
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Gonzalo
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 17/06/2014 8:33 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan <<= a href=3D"mailto:dbryan@ethernot.org">dbryan@ethernot.org
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:d= bryan@ethernot.org>> wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> I was recently asked to update the concept= s draft and discuss the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0important issues. The pass that has been made is la= rgely around
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0normalizing the text to be compliant with the termi= nology of RFC
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A06940, but it certainly will need an additional pass= after a few
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0questions to the group:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> To move this draft forward, there are a fe= w open issues/questions:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial= wording in the high-level
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0description
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 about proving AoR to contact = mapping reflects a very long and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 contentious debate about the = role of the protocol, and reflected a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 pretense that this was an ove= rlay only for P2PSIP.=C2=A0 That is not
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 really true in base anymore (= see last paragraph of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0introduction) and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 the language has been very mu= ch genericized in base.=C2=A0 Should
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0we make
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 this text more abstract and t= hen use AoR->contact mapping as an
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 example of the (original) use= ?=C2=A0 On a related note, see the last
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 paragraph of the Background s= ection -- do we want to reword this?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> (my thought would be to make the text more= generic, and mention
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0that the AoR->contact mapping is the most popula= r usage=E2=80=A6)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Agree
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 OPEN ISSUE: Should we include= a section that documents previous
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 decisions made, to preserve t= he historical debate and prevent past
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 issues from being raised in t= he future, or simply rely on the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mailing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 list to address these concern= s?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> (I don't think we want to do this. Hug= e (and largely unneeded)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0can of worms, but it has been in the open issues se= ction for some
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0time and should be at least asked of the list)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> No, we don=E2=80=99t need to do this
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 OPEN ISSUE: Should we include= the use cases from
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenar= ios-00 (now long expired)?=C2=A0 There was
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 some interest in doing so in = previous versions, but no
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0conclusion was
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 reached.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> (given the current stage of the group, I w= ould say these aren't
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0likely to be useful anymore, but again, as it is cu= rrently listed as
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0an open issue in the draft, need to check)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Nah, I don=E2=80=99t think it is necessary, or= even that useful at this point
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> The final open issue is do we want to adva= nce the draft? In
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion with the chairs and some folks, it seems= the answer is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0yes, there is useful material and we should push th= e draft out, but
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I wanted to discuss. Assuming there is still intere= st, I'd also
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0welcome any comments on the draft...I'm sure I = missed a few spots
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0where it no longer aligns with 6940.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> I would like to see this finished.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> David
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> __________________________________________= _____
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> P2PSIP mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> P2PSIP@= ietf.org <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org<= /a>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2ps= ip
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> ______________________________________________= _
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> P2PSIP mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> P2PSIP@ietf= .org <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org&= gt;
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>

--001a11c1b4248b163f050e30857d-- From nobody Tue Feb 3 07:24:06 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1321A19F2 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:24:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YS6gJRtdS67f for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:24:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5210E1A036E for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:24:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id ey11so97523901pad.7 for ; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 07:24:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=softarmor.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=59bqwIqVuNLD9+TrVLGOshqEgNbozH1UKPQhI2MbHzE=; b=c+KIQKOqa5s6Zr/0ushi1MgiKil0ZH8RJidV4hpmXcZbu3YQGeQxWDpZ+kqIwaAaGI LTvk9IR4Zd6+eq5yndvT8oSTAmRiVCZTCzZXGQOc0wMz1Jqr+NlVDX9gQnVOcPKZyASE EXCoGVHO0r9GPhCPtYPfzgr21iVyOXzcabGRs= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=59bqwIqVuNLD9+TrVLGOshqEgNbozH1UKPQhI2MbHzE=; b=gEqIMwKIp6+wsTUy8bs1oARSCb+f1GaDtxF07Qmu/Axx+1MklCJuU6yol7NOvYdB+0 xbqbCnUT9rse2Gnq2llGKFaQso/Na1Oufe2VxS4d/Ox81f+N0bAvXRlr545TGfvrCvwa Vk0SH2FDkhz4aoO7/ETryXbzvIJdUH86VrObtzWrxQw3E7pfr1Fw0z5+opqUVdw5Xsqi tIazmO7NmnOFCG8Rc6q+/7BZ3Kqtq1sy+YW3pgYQ/d3wfi18Zw1GX4j4EUlwOmJHvtK8 g3SCV1M0j+HEZxWF7/kc6mEgVs+VX42MG0HxgIMraGolpq0mfadS3vXiGJ/Y4kncx4cn eiPA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnrdhkKfYFVjQkTyTD/uwsBwtclQGSJYR9HRvvm7U+4NsimgNvPSHOL9PcTNOTARhd4TZo8 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.70.36.99 with SMTP id p3mr38116183pdj.81.1422977042569; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 07:24:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.57.42 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:24:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.57.42 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 07:24:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <54D088CA.2060104@ericsson.com> <54D0DCBE.4040005@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 09:24:02 -0600 Message-ID: From: Dean Willis To: David Bryan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfeb37025759e050e30a989 Archived-At: Cc: "Rosen, Brian" , p2psip@ietf.org Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 15:24:06 -0000 --047d7bfeb37025759e050e30a989 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David is my hero. On Feb 3, 2015 9:14 AM, "David Bryan" wrote: > I can iterate next week or week after, and yes, agree it is very close to > ready for WGLC. > On Feb 3, 2015 8:35 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" < > Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> thanks for the quick response! Given the status, I think you can just >> revise the draft and get the chairs to WGLC it. Do you have an ETA for >> such a revision? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gonzalo >> >> On 03/02/2015 3:43 PM, David Bryan wrote: >> > I am indeed. It needs one small pass to conform to 6940 language but >> > should otherwise be good to go. I have in my notes that I was waiting >> > for any further comments, but the list has been very quiet. >> > >> > On Feb 3, 2015 2:37 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" >> > > >> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > what is the status of this draft? Are its authors actively working >> > on it? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Gonzalo >> > >> > On 17/06/2014 8:33 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote: >> > > >> > > On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan > > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> I was recently asked to update the concepts draft and discuss t= he >> > important issues. The pass that has been made is largely around >> > normalizing the text to be compliant with the terminology of RFC >> > 6940, but it certainly will need an additional pass after a few >> > questions to the group: >> > >> >> > >> To move this draft forward, there are a few open >> issues/questions: >> > >> >> > >> MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-level >> > description >> > >> about proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very long an= d >> > >> contentious debate about the role of the protocol, and >> reflected a >> > >> pretense that this was an overlay only for P2PSIP. That is >> not >> > >> really true in base anymore (see last paragraph of >> > introduction) and >> > >> the language has been very much genericized in base. Should >> > we make >> > >> this text more abstract and then use AoR->contact mapping as >> an >> > >> example of the (original) use? On a related note, see the >> last >> > >> paragraph of the Background section -- do we want to reword >> this? >> > >> >> > >> (my thought would be to make the text more generic, and mention >> > that the AoR->contact mapping is the most popular usage=E2=80=A6) >> > > Agree >> > > >> > >> >> > >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that documents >> previous >> > >> decisions made, to preserve the historical debate and preven= t >> past >> > >> issues from being raised in the future, or simply rely on th= e >> > mailing >> > >> list to address these concerns? >> > >> >> > >> (I don't think we want to do this. Huge (and largely unneeded) >> > can of worms, but it has been in the open issues section for some >> > time and should be at least asked of the list) >> > > No, we don=E2=80=99t need to do this >> > > >> > >> >> > >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from >> > >> draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired)? >> There was >> > >> some interest in doing so in previous versions, but no >> > conclusion was >> > >> reached. >> > >> >> > >> (given the current stage of the group, I would say these aren't >> > likely to be useful anymore, but again, as it is currently listed = as >> > an open issue in the draft, need to check) >> > > Nah, I don=E2=80=99t think it is necessary, or even that useful = at this >> point >> > > >> > >> >> > >> The final open issue is do we want to advance the draft? In >> > discussion with the chairs and some folks, it seems the answer is >> > yes, there is useful material and we should push the draft out, bu= t >> > I wanted to discuss. Assuming there is still interest, I'd also >> > welcome any comments on the draft...I'm sure I missed a few spots >> > where it no longer aligns with 6940. >> > > I would like to see this finished. >> > > >> > >> >> > >> David >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> > >> P2PSIP mailing list >> > >> P2PSIP@ietf.org >> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > P2PSIP mailing list >> > > P2PSIP@ietf.org >> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >> > > >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > P2PSIP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > --047d7bfeb37025759e050e30a989 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

David is my hero.

On Feb 3, 2015 9:14 AM, "David Bryan" = <dbryan@ethernot.org> wrot= e:

I = can iterate next week or week after, and yes, agree it is very close to rea= dy for WGLC.

On Feb 3, 2015 8:35 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo&= quot; <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi David,

thanks for the quick response! Given the status, I think you can just
revise the draft and get the chairs to WGLC it. Do you have an ETA for
such a revision?

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 03/02/2015 3:43 PM, David Bryan wrote:
> I am indeed. It needs one small pass to conform to 6940 language but > should otherwise be good to go. I have in my notes that I was waiting<= br> > for any further comments, but the list has been very quiet.
>
> On Feb 3, 2015 2:37 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo"
> <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com <mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com= >>
> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Hi,
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0what is the status of this draft? Are its authors a= ctively working
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on it?
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Thanks,
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Gonzalo
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On 17/06/2014 8:33 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan <<= a href=3D"mailto:dbryan@ethernot.org" target=3D"_blank">dbryan@ethernot.org=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<mailto:dbryan@ethernot.org>> wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> I was recently asked to update the concept= s draft and discuss the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0important issues. The pass that has been made is la= rgely around
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0normalizing the text to be compliant with the termi= nology of RFC
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A06940, but it certainly will need an additional pass= after a few
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0questions to the group:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> To move this draft forward, there are a fe= w open issues/questions:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial= wording in the high-level
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0description
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 about proving AoR to contact = mapping reflects a very long and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 contentious debate about the = role of the protocol, and reflected a
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 pretense that this was an ove= rlay only for P2PSIP.=C2=A0 That is not
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 really true in base anymore (= see last paragraph of
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0introduction) and
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 the language has been very mu= ch genericized in base.=C2=A0 Should
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0we make
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 this text more abstract and t= hen use AoR->contact mapping as an
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 example of the (original) use= ?=C2=A0 On a related note, see the last
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 paragraph of the Background s= ection -- do we want to reword this?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> (my thought would be to make the text more= generic, and mention
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0that the AoR->contact mapping is the most popula= r usage=E2=80=A6)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Agree
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 OPEN ISSUE: Should we include= a section that documents previous
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 decisions made, to preserve t= he historical debate and prevent past
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 issues from being raised in t= he future, or simply rely on the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mailing
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 list to address these concern= s?
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> (I don't think we want to do this. Hug= e (and largely unneeded)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0can of worms, but it has been in the open issues se= ction for some
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0time and should be at least asked of the list)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> No, we don=E2=80=99t need to do this
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 OPEN ISSUE: Should we include= the use cases from
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenar= ios-00 (now long expired)?=C2=A0 There was
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 some interest in doing so in = previous versions, but no
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0conclusion was
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 reached.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> (given the current stage of the group, I w= ould say these aren't
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0likely to be useful anymore, but again, as it is cu= rrently listed as
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0an open issue in the draft, need to check)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> Nah, I don=E2=80=99t think it is necessary, or= even that useful at this point
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> The final open issue is do we want to adva= nce the draft? In
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0discussion with the chairs and some folks, it seems= the answer is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0yes, there is useful material and we should push th= e draft out, but
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I wanted to discuss. Assuming there is still intere= st, I'd also
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0welcome any comments on the draft...I'm sure I = missed a few spots
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0where it no longer aligns with 6940.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> I would like to see this finished.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> David
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> __________________________________________= _____
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> P2PSIP mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> P2PSIP@ietf.org <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2ps= ip
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> ______________________________________________= _
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> P2PSIP mailing list
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> P2PSIP@ietf.org <mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0>
>


_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
P2PSIP@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

--047d7bfeb37025759e050e30a989-- From nobody Fri Feb 6 00:43:14 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC0F1A0108 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 00:43:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.152 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DSaReXi8zfrG for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 00:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0B161A19F8 for ; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 00:43:08 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79116d000000fec-32-54d47e9a94a4 Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 12.7A.04076.A9E74D45; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:43:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [131.160.126.85] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:43:06 +0100 Message-ID: <54D37C57.1050802@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:21:11 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dean Willis , David Bryan References: <54D088CA.2060104@ericsson.com> <54D0DCBE.4040005@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7suishBisfcVlMO3mZ2WLS38/s FruuaFksuXmG0YHF4/G3P8weS5b8ZPLY0fCc2ePikm+MASxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBnzm68y FswxqXjY3MzUwLhavouRk0NCwERi6uW3jBC2mMSFe+vZuhi5OIQEjjBKrP0D46xmlNg0/wcT SBWvgLbEt2kTWLoYOThYBFQkFn1JAAmzCVhIbLl1nwXEFhWIkph9/gErRLmgxMmZT8DiIgJ+ Eg9urARrZRawl+i/JQgSFgaasuX0c3aIVZOYJZpuTwPr5RQIlOi/cZEVol5TYv0ufZAws4C8 RPPW2cwgthDQNcuftbBMYBSchWTbLISOWUg6FjAyr2IULU4tLs5NNzLSSy3KTC4uzs/Ty0st 2cQIDOiDW35b7WA8+NzxEKMAB6MSD6+B3pUQIdbEsuLK3EOM0hwsSuK8dsaHQoQE0hNLUrNT UwtSi+KLSnNSiw8xMnFwSjUwCl+Qk1rjEulgxHJC7sV6w17mmIuuf87NbT6ywMmF55OZhEbw qWntK2Jj7umvP9h4P8txdkj8rQn95yRXOd7YzbJXS2GVfVe5uoH9PD+zOdkzNu642rp3d6BA 7H/v7R1FRQapn2Lkv85+Y1jBkvj14esXNk+/X5/TW3JQ/ZIV11KDyfosq9b+VGIpzkg01GIu Kk4EANpz8ZRJAgAA Archived-At: Cc: "Rosen, Brian" , p2psip@ietf.org Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Concepts Draft X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:43:12 -0000 Hi, > David is my hero. s/my/our/ :-) > I can iterate next week or week after, and yes, agree it is very > close to ready for WGLC. If you could revise the draft in that time frame, that would be really great. Also, if you could discuss on the list what remains to be resolved in order to get the draft to be ready for WGLC, that would give us a way forward. Thanks! Gonzalo > > On Feb 3, 2015 8:35 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" > > wrote: > > Hi David, > > thanks for the quick response! Given the status, I think you can > just > revise the draft and get the chairs to WGLC it. Do you have an > ETA for > such a revision? > > Thanks, > > Gonzalo > > On 03/02/2015 3:43 PM, David Bryan wrote: > > I am indeed. It needs one small pass to conform to 6940 > language but > > should otherwise be good to go. I have in my notes that I was > waiting > > for any further comments, but the list has been very quiet. > > > > On Feb 3, 2015 2:37 AM, "Gonzalo Camarillo" > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > what is the status of this draft? Are its authors actively > working > > on it? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Gonzalo > > > > On 17/06/2014 8:33 PM, Rosen, Brian wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> I was recently asked to update the concepts draft and > discuss the > > important issues. The pass that has been made is largely > around > > normalizing the text to be compliant with the terminology > of RFC > > 6940, but it certainly will need an additional pass after > a few > > questions to the group: > > >> > > >> To move this draft forward, there are a few open > issues/questions: > > >> > > >> MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-level > > description > > >> about proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very > long and > > >> contentious debate about the role of the protocol, > and reflected a > > >> pretense that this was an overlay only for P2PSIP. > That is not > > >> really true in base anymore (see last paragraph of > > introduction) and > > >> the language has been very much genericized in > base. Should > > we make > > >> this text more abstract and then use AoR->contact > mapping as an > > >> example of the (original) use? On a related note, > see the last > > >> paragraph of the Background section -- do we want to > reword this? > > >> > > >> (my thought would be to make the text more generic, and > mention > > that the AoR->contact mapping is the most popular usage…) > > > Agree > > > > > >> > > >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that > documents previous > > >> decisions made, to preserve the historical debate > and prevent past > > >> issues from being raised in the future, or simply > rely on the > > mailing > > >> list to address these concerns? > > >> > > >> (I don't think we want to do this. Huge (and largely > unneeded) > > can of worms, but it has been in the open issues section > for some > > time and should be at least asked of the list) > > > No, we don’t need to do this > > > > > >> > > >> OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from > > >> draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long > expired)? There was > > >> some interest in doing so in previous versions, but no > > conclusion was > > >> reached. > > >> > > >> (given the current stage of the group, I would say > these aren't > > likely to be useful anymore, but again, as it is currently > listed as > > an open issue in the draft, need to check) > > > Nah, I don’t think it is necessary, or even that useful > at this point > > > > > >> > > >> The final open issue is do we want to advance the draft? In > > discussion with the chairs and some folks, it seems the > answer is > > yes, there is useful material and we should push the draft > out, but > > I wanted to discuss. Assuming there is still interest, I'd > also > > welcome any comments on the draft...I'm sure I missed a > few spots > > where it no longer aligns with 6940. > > > I would like to see this finished. > > > > > >> > > >> David > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> P2PSIP mailing list > > >> P2PSIP@ietf.org > > > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > P2PSIP mailing list > > > P2PSIP@ietf.org > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > P2PSIP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >