Henry, I appreciate the pointers, but there is no agreement for many of these terms in the literature or the terms are very specific to either a particular class of resource discovery systems (such as structured/DHT ones) or an algorithm. I think everyone would like to use existing terminology as much as possible.
Henning On Apr 23, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Henry Sinnreich wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
