I suppose a good start would be to agree on some reference sources on P2P, for example:
* Wikipedia has an excellent P2P tutorial section with well known references http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer * The openDHT publications http://opendht.org/pubs.html Just these two sources would be a good start, though folks on the list may well have additional sources to suggest. What this discussions proves however is that instead every I-D in the P2PSIP WG having its own glossary, the WG should better invite someone to write a glossary paper on its own that can be discussed and agreed on. This was not in the charter, but may be a good option, given the work involved. Another option is for the terminology paper by Dean Willis et al. to be updated with an updated and comprehensive glossary for P2P. What do you think? Henry On 4/23/08 4:16 PM, "David A. Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most of the terms were very carefully picked to match the technical > literature as much as possible. That said, the literature sometimes is > not consistent between different papers... > > I agree we should try to reflect the literature, and believe that we > for the most part do in the current draft ( > > David (as individual) > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Victor Pascual Ávila > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:51 PM, David A. Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> I agree on using no P2PSIP labels and suggest that we use P2P >> terminology common in the technical literature. >> >> Thanks, >> -- >> Victor Pascual Ávila >> > > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
