I may be late but I agree with the proposal. The resource discovery is essential as not all nodes are the same and some could be more appropriate for certain task (storage vs computation vs rendering). I also agree on node vs peer - actually some nodes could be involved in P2P and non P2P relationships. Finally while I have no personal problem with P2PSIP I know people who do.
/mjm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henning Schulzrinne Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:34 PM To: P2PSIP Mailing List Subject: [P2PSIP] Terminology - no WG names 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. 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. Henning _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
