Hi Cullen, >Cisco has open source one that I have >helped with. You can get it yourself from the b-20070702-p2p >branch of the resiprocate.org site. Or browse the code at >http://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/resiprocate/branches/b-20070702-p2p/
This sounds very interesting. Could you please explain us what you implemented (I could only find a number of files without any explanation what they are etc..)? Is this the implementation of ASP-00? What experiments did you perform? What was the size of the P2PSIP network? Is this activity terminated or are some people in Cisco continuing open-source development? There is a number of P2PSIP implementations. I think it would be good to share our implementation experience. Marcin >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Behalf Of ext Cullen Jennings >Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 6:26 AM >To: Henry Sinnreich >Cc: Jon Peterson; Eggert Lars (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki); P2PSIP Mailing List >Subject: [P2PSIP] Cullen Lying > > >Henry, I don't know what I can do to convince you I am not >lying. I have said many times that there are other open source >implementations of P2P SIP proposals in addition to the fine >work from Columbia. Cisco has open source one that I have >helped with. You can get it yourself from the b-20070702-p2p >branch of the resiprocate.org site. Or browse the code at >http://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/resiprocate/branches/b-20070702-p2p/ > . It is under a BSD like license. This was provided as open >source for the general public on September 17, 2007 which I >suspect was actually before any others were publicly >available. I announced that this existed at the microphone in >one of the p2psip adhocs. I have told you this several times >in person. It upsets me when you say this does not exist. I >really don't know what to say. > >I have also see demonstrations of the P2PSIP system Bruce is >working on. It's real - I imagine that several other people on >this list have also seen it. Perhaps they can collaborate my >story that they really have seen it to help convince you I am >not lying. > >Cullen > > >On Mar 15, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Henry Sinnreich wrote: > >> Leaving the process issue aside for a moment, it is useful >to look at >> the root causes of the problem. One of them is the authors >clearly did >> not have time for this document, let alone do research and run code, >> except for Columbia University. >> >> Most authors of the (overly large number as has been pointed out) >> document are truly world class and no doubt the best in the IETF. >> Reload-03 has not had the benefit of their expertise and >capability by >> any stretch of the imagination. >> >> So the core issue #1 is IMO: Do the listed authors really >want to make >> the tough choice of dedicating their time and priorities to P2P and >> give up all countless other engagements to provide such time and >> focus? >> _P2P >> work cannot be delegated_. >> >> What about #2 generating and sharing code as the Columbia University >> folks have done? Or are we expected to trust invisible work and >> assurances that code and measurements we cannot see are more than a >> claim? >> >> My understanding from the meeting is the P2PP authors will >take a turn >> to edit the next version of the document and also the name may be >> changed. >> >> Yes?/No ? >> >> So let's keep our fingers crossed... >> >> Henry >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins >> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 11:34 AM >> To: P2PSIP Mailing List >> Cc: Lars Eggert; Jon Peterson >> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Just to be clear... >> >> I agree with Dean on several points. One difference - I am not >> concerned >> >> that the ADs might be pushing (we have both RAI ADs in this >room plus >> more ADs than most WG meetings, so anything suspicious that I'm >> missing is happening in front of witnesses). >> >> Like Dean, I don't have concerns that this draft is being strong- >> armed, but like Dean, I also have a sense from listening to people >> that (for >> example) >> it wasn't even worth getting up at the mike and saying "I think this >> other proposal should be considered". >> >> I especially agree that a clearer, revised draft will make it easier >> to agree that we are doing the right thing if we do what it >looks like >> we are going to do. >> >> I believe that the short interval between IETF 70 and IETF 71 forced >> the >> >> slamming merge that we saw, and I believe the slamming merge output >> explains the rest of the problematic situation. No harm, no >foul, but >> we need to LOOK as "clear" (procedurally) as we are. >> >> In summary... this was only a small elephant, but it is an >elephant. >> It >> could even be a nice pet elephant, but we need to make sure that we >> don't trip over it while walking through the room. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Spencer >> >> From: "Dean Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> On Mar 14, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >>> >>>> I really AM thinking that RELOAD-04 will be adopted as a working >> group >>>> item >>>> after it is submitted (under whatever name is finally chosen). >>>> >>>> Is anyone expecting something else to happen? >>>> >>> >>> Since it is my apparent self-appointed role to point out the >>> elephants >> in >>> the room . . . >>> >>> There are people who feel that RELOAD is being "strong- armed" >>> (coerced >> by >>> people with procedural authority) into place. I've personally heard >> this >>> perception expressed by several working group participants, even >> though I >>> don't have the same perception. This sort of problem >happens anytime >> a >>> candidate draft has contributor support from a chair, area >director, >> or >>> area technical advisor (and RELOAD has all three!). The WG's only >> counter >>> is to be meticulous about the application of process and propriety >> with >>> respect to such a draft. >>> >>> The relative unreadability of the hastily merged RELOAD draft makes >>> comparing and discussing the merits/demerits of the >proposal against >>> alternatives difficult. >>> >>> Strong pressure from the chairs, ADs, and area technical adviser to >> adopt >>> the draft in the light of this "difficult to compare and discuss" >>> condition aggravate the perception of being "strong-armed" >>> >>> I believe that a more mature draft will eliminate the argument that >>> debate on the technical issues is too difficult. >>> >>> So once we have a better draft, people will either have good >>> technical >> >>> arguments against the proposal or will be willing to accept the >> proposal >>> as a consensus position. >>> >>> In the end, I expect that the RELOAD draft will be accepted >as the WG >>> baseline document. But we need to more-than-fairly exercise the >> process >>> to get there if we want the working group to continue to move >> smoothly. >>> >>> -- >>> Dean >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> P2PSIP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >> _______________________________________________ >> P2PSIP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > >_______________________________________________ >P2PSIP mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
