draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-06.txt		draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-07.txt
	P2PSIP Working Group D. Bryan		P2PSIP Working Group D. Bryan
	Internet-Draft Cogent Force, LLC		Internet-Draft Cogent Force, LLC
	Intended status: Informational P. Matthews		Intended status: Informational P. Matthews
	Expires: December 15, 2014 Alcatel-Lucent		Expires: November 9, 2015 Alcatel-Lucent
	E. Shim		E. Shim
	Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.		Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
	D. Willis		D. Willis
	Softarmor Systems		Softarmor Systems
	S. Dawkins		S. Dawkins
	Huawei (USA)		Huawei (USA)
	June 13, 2014		May 8, 2015
	Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP		Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP
	draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-06		draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-07
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines concepts and terminology for the use of the		This document defines concepts and terminology for the use of the
	Session Initiation Protocol in a peer-to-peer environment where the		Session Initiation Protocol in a peer-to-peer environment where the
	traditional proxy-registrar and message routing functions are		traditional proxy-registrar and message routing functions are
	replaced by a distributed mechanism. These mechanisms may be		replaced by a distributed mechanism. These mechanisms may be
	implemented using a distributed hash table or other distributed data		implemented using a distributed hash table or other distributed data
	mechanism with similar external properties. This document includes a		mechanism with similar external properties. This document includes a
	high-level view of the functional relationships between the network		high-level view of the functional relationships between the network
	skipping to change at page 1, line 47		skipping to change at page 1, line 47
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on December 15, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on November 9, 2015.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	skipping to change at page 3, line 10		skipping to change at page 3, line 10
	outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may		outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
	not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format		not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
	it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other		it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
	than English.		than English.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Editor's Notes and Changes To This Version . . . . . . . . . . 4		1. Editor's Notes and Changes To This Version . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. High-Level Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. High-Level Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1. Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1. Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.2. Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.2. Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.3. Relationship Between P2PSIP and RELOAD . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.3. Relationship Between P2PSIP and RELOAD . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.4. Relationship Between P2PSIP and SIP . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.4. Relationship Between P2PSIP and SIP . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.5. Relationship Between P2PSIP and Other AoR		3.5. Relationship Between P2PSIP and Other AoR
	Dereferencing Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		Dereferencing Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.6. NAT Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		3.6. NAT Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4. Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	6.1. The Distributed Database Function . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		6.1. The Distributed Database Function . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	6.2. Using the Distributed Database Function . . . . . . . . . 14		6.2. Using the Distributed Database Function . . . . . . . . . 14
	6.3. NAT Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6.3. NAT Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	6.4. Locating and Joining an Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		6.4. Locating and Joining an Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	6.5. Clients and Connecting Unmodified SIP Devices . . . . . . 16		6.5. Clients and Connecting Unmodified SIP Devices . . . . . . 16
	6.6. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		6.6. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	7. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		7. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	1. Editor's Notes and Changes To This Version		1. Editor's Notes and Changes To This Version
	This version of the draft represents a very minor revision of version		This version of the draft represents almost no change from -06, which
	-05 and is intended to restart conversation on this draft in the		itself was a very minor revision of version -05 and is intended to
	group, to identify open issues, address them, and complete work on		restart conversation on this draft in the group, to identify open
	the document in light of RELOAD being issued as an RFC.		issues, address them, and complete work on the document in light of
			RELOAD being issued as an RFC.
			It is currently believed this draft's terminology is inline with RFC
			6940. Please report any discrepancies to the editors of this
			document.
	Version -03 represented a substantial revision from the previous		Version -03 represented a substantial revision from the previous
	version. Until -02, this work was tracking open questions and being		version. Until -02, this work was tracking open questions and being
	used to help reach consensus on a draft. With the selection of		used to help reach consensus on a draft. With the selection of
	RELOAD as the protocol for this WG, the focus of the group turned to		RELOAD as the protocol for this WG, the focus of the group turned to
	completing the RELOAD draft, and the WG directed the editors to		completing the RELOAD draft, and the WG directed the editors to
	update the document to reflect the decisions made in RELOAD upon		update the document to reflect the decisions made in RELOAD upon
	completion.		completion.
	Please see Section 7 for the list of major open issues.		Please see Section 7 for the list of major open issues.
	skipping to change at page 17, line 29		skipping to change at page 17, line 38
	| |		| |
	| SIP, other apps... |		| SIP, other apps... |
	| ___________________|		| ___________________|
	| | RELOAD Layer |		| | RELOAD Layer |
	|______|___________________|		|______|___________________|
	| Transport Layer |		| Transport Layer |
	|__________________________|		|__________________________|
	7. Open Issues		7. Open Issues
	MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-level description		OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-level description about
	about proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very long and		proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very long and contentious
	contentious debate about the role of the protocol, and reflected a		debate about the role of the protocol, and reflected a pretense that
	pretense that this was an overlay only for P2PSIP. That is not		this was an overlay only for P2PSIP. That is not really true in base
	really true in base anymore (see last paragraph of introduction) and		anymore (see last paragraph of introduction) and the language has
	the language has been very much genericized in base. Should we make		been very much genericized in base. Should we make this text more
	this text more abstract and then use AoR->contact mapping as an		abstract and then use AoR->contact mapping as an example of the
	example of the (original) use? On a related note, see the last		(original) use? On a related note, see the last paragraph of the
	paragraph of the Background section -- do we want to reword this?		Background section -- do we want to reword this?
			At this point, the editors believe these additional two issues are
			settled, but are left here for final debate on the document before
			publication.
	OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that documents previous		OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that documents previous
	decisions made, to preserve the historical debate and prevent past		decisions made, to preserve the historical debate and prevent past
	issues from being raised in the future, or simply rely on the mailing		issues from being raised in the future, or simply rely on the mailing
	list to address these concerns?		list to address these concerns? (consensus seemed to be no)
	OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from		OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from
	draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired)? There was		draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired)? (consensus
	some interest in doing so in previous versions, but no conclusion was		seemed to be no)
	reached.
	8. Informative References		8. Informative References
	[Chord] Singh, K., Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Kaashock,		[Chord] Singh, K., Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Kaashock,
	M., Dabek, F., and H. Balakrishman, "Chord: A scalable		M., Dabek, F., and H. Balakrishman, "Chord: A scalable
	peer-to-peer lookup protocol for internet applications",		peer-to-peer lookup protocol for internet applications",
	IEEE/ACM Transactions on Neworking Volume 11 Issue 1, pp.		IEEE/ACM Transactions on Neworking Volume 11 Issue 1, pp.
	17-32, Feb. 2003.		17-32, Feb. 2003.
	Copy available at		Copy available at
End of changes. 13 change blocks.
	27 lines changed or deleted		35 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/