On Apr 23, 2008, at 3:51 PM, David A. Bryan 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.
DY> +1 Makes sense to not have the WG label in there. > > >> 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). DY> With P2P in general getting more attention these days, has the literature changed at all in relation to 'peer' vs 'node'? DY> I would be inclined to agree with your original usage. To me, "node" merely indicates that a device/program/whatever is a connection point on a network (or network overlay), while "peer" implies a "relationship" between the device/program/whatever and other similar objects. DY> "Node" to me does not have the relationship baggage. It just "is". DY> However, I can also see where this could very easily go down a semantic rathole and be one of those things that could consume zillions of electrons and hours of our time debating. DY> I agree with Henry that a centralized glossary makes sense, but I'm a little bit confused - isn't that what the 'concepts' document is supposed to be? ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-01 ) While Henning did not explicitly state the draft he was referring to, I assumed it was this one. Regards, Dan > -- Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com Build voice applications based on open standards. Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
