Henning, >I think everyone would like to use existing > terminology as much as possible.
Can you point us to some? Thanks, Henry On 4/24/08 4:18 AM, "Henning Schulzrinne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
