--- 1/draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-06.txt 2015-05-08 14:14:55.293694909 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-07.txt 2015-05-08 14:14:55.341696044 -0700 @@ -1,25 +1,25 @@ P2PSIP Working Group D. Bryan Internet-Draft Cogent Force, LLC Intended status: Informational P. Matthews -Expires: December 15, 2014 Alcatel-Lucent +Expires: November 9, 2015 Alcatel-Lucent E. Shim Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. D. Willis Softarmor Systems S. Dawkins Huawei (USA) - June 13, 2014 + May 8, 2015 Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP - draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-06 + draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-07 Abstract This document defines concepts and terminology for the use of the Session Initiation Protocol in a peer-to-peer environment where the traditional proxy-registrar and message routing functions are replaced by a distributed mechanism. These mechanisms may be implemented using a distributed hash table or other distributed data mechanism with similar external properties. This document includes a high-level view of the functional relationships between the network @@ -36,24 +36,24 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 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 (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. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as @@ -69,46 +69,51 @@ outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Table of Contents 1. Editor's Notes and Changes To This Version . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. High-Level Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.1. Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.1. Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 Dereferencing Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.6. NAT Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4. Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 4. Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.1. The Distributed Database Function . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.2. Using the Distributed Database Function . . . . . . . . . 14 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 6.6. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1. Editor's Notes and Changes To This Version - This version of the draft represents a very minor revision of version - -05 and is intended to restart conversation on this draft in the - group, to identify open issues, address them, and complete work on - the document in light of RELOAD being issued as an RFC. + This version of the draft represents almost no change from -06, which + itself was a very minor revision of version -05 and is intended to + restart conversation on this draft in the group, to identify open + 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. Until -02, this work was tracking open questions and being 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 completing the RELOAD draft, and the WG directed the editors to update the document to reflect the decisions made in RELOAD upon completion. Please see Section 7 for the list of major open issues. @@ -728,39 +732,42 @@ | | | SIP, other apps... | | ___________________| | | RELOAD Layer | |______|___________________| | Transport Layer | |__________________________| 7. Open Issues - 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? + 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? + + 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 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? + list to address these concerns? (consensus seemed to be no) 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. + draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired)? (consensus + seemed to be no) 8. Informative References [Chord] Singh, K., Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Kaashock, M., Dabek, F., and H. Balakrishman, "Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup protocol for internet applications", IEEE/ACM Transactions on Neworking Volume 11 Issue 1, pp. 17-32, Feb. 2003. Copy available at