Inline On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In writing the revised draft, I took another look at the terminology > document. In general, I think it's a really bad idea to label terms > with the working group name. The name will be meaningless to non-IETF > participants, i.e., 99% of developers, and will cease to have any > meaning once the working group fades from memory. (I don't think > P2PSIP wants to become another DHC or AVT WG...) In addition, the > prefix doesn't really define anything, except recursively whatever the > working group decided to work on. Thus, a P2PSIP overlay is the > overlay defined by the P2PSIP working group, which is... > > For example, I would suggest > > resource discovery overlay > > for our main work item.
Not a bad idea, from my perspective. I think early on we did it to distinguish what we talking about from the more general term, but eliminating the P2PSIP labels sounds ok to me. Interested to see what others think. > On a related note, I would also suggest changing 'peer ID' to 'node > ID', since we seem to have some agreement that clients, as future > peers, would be identified by the same construct. But saying "a client > has a peer ID, but isn't a peer" doesn't seem to further understanding. There was a very long discussion about peer vs. node, and the consensus was that the literature preferred peer to node. I know way back, in the very first P2PSIP draft submitted, I used node everywhere, and actually preferred it to peer. When we decided to change it, I did so in all my drafts. I actually think this is one of those where we could argue all day back and forth about it, and the discussion would be "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". I don't really care from a technical perspective, but I'd be willing to bet $10 we could spend many more hours debating it, and someone would still bring it up and propose to flip it again in 6 months (and possibly with good, reasons too -- it's just there are good arguments on both side). I'd vote to just recognize language is an imperfect tool to express ideas and leave it alone. As an aside, I would think a client having a peer-id makes perfect sense if the reason it has it is that it could conceivably be a peer in some context. It is is "latent" peer-ID, in that case, ready to be used if it becomes one. I don't really see the conflict. David (as individual) > Henning > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > -- David A. Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1.757.565.0101 x101 +1.757.565.0088 (fax) www.SIPeerior.com _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
