>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Dan York >Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:27 AM >To: David A. Bryan >Cc: P2PSIP Mailing List >Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Terminology - no WG names > > >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.
[Song] +1 Agree, although I don't think "resource discovery overlay" is an appropriate term for p2p overlay. >> >>> 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. [Song] Both "peer" and "node" are okay with me. >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. [Song] I think the concept and terminology draft is a centralized glossary for the WG. If there are divergent opinions on the terminology, we should discuss them in the mailing list or at the WG meeting, and the authors should update the terminology draft according to the consensus. > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
