Hi, all: IMO, another important work is to make clear the assumptions of the future work, such as: 1. Which kinds of data will be stored in the overlay? what's the reasonable size of the data?
2. How much churn of the overlay where the peer protocol will be applied? The pratical way is to use the experimental data from the real existing system. I am not sure the resulting peer protcol could work in all cases. 3. How much percent of the public nodes in the overlay is reasonable? IMHO, if we don't work it out before we come up with the protocol, I think, it's hard to get consensus on the proposal, because we have no common assumptions. Comments? Regards JiangXingFeng > I also agree to dropping the WG name from the names of the terms. > Since we distinguish Peers from Clients, changing 'Peer ID' to 'Node > ID' is a good idea since it makes sense to assign an ID to a Client > and there is no reason to distinguish Client IDs and Peer IDs. > > Regarding P2P glossary, I don't think the intention of the concept and > terminology draft was to write a comprehensive P2P glossary document. > The initial objective was to do a ground work to help defining the > charter and thus the authors initially tried to focus on terms and > concepts relevant to defining the charter. Now the draft should > provide an overview of the key concepts and frequently used > terminology. It is probably not easy to say when the collected > terminology is comprehensive. Maybe we can try to extend the > terminology section in the current concept and terminology draft to > cover most terms frequently used in P2P literature and draft submitted > in the WG. > > Thanks. > > Eunsoo > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Song Haibin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >-----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 > > > > > > -- > Eunsoo > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
