Hi Kai, Are you folks also working on a Skype like app? ;-) SG
----- Original Message ---- From: "Miao, Kai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Henry Sinnreich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sukanta ganguly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Dean Willis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Gonzalo Camarillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; P2PSIP WG <[email protected]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 5:20:34 PM Subject: RE: [P2PSIP] HIP for P2P SIP Re: [P2PSIP] HIP for P2P SIP Hello Henry, good to “hear” from you. We are working on p2p based “social media” using the same basic ideas… Kai ________________________________ From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henry Sinnreich Sent: 2008年6月27日7:03 To: Sukanta ganguly; Dean Willis; Gonzalo Camarillo Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; P2PSIP WG; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP for P2P SIP One way to think about P2P SIP is a Skype-like service platform based on open standards. AKA ‘Skype envy’ :-) Any other applications for P2P SIP? P2P has however a very large spectrum of other (non-SIP) applications that can be found in various tutorials. Henry On 6/26/08 3:27 PM, "Sukanta ganguly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I was wanting to ask you folks this question about the application of P2P SIP from your views. I have been following this email trail and since many of you are from the industry I wanted to understand a little from your perspective, the potential applications of P2P SIP. I would really appreciate if you people share their views and understanding here. Thanks SG ----- Original Message ---- From: Henry Sinnreich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Dean Willis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Gonzalo Camarillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; P2PSIP WG <[email protected]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:35:32 AM Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] HIP for P2P SIP Dean, Yes to all your questions. Henry On 6/26/08 10:26 AM, "Dean Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:42 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > >> Hi Henry, >> >>> Yes, I know, developing HIP code looks like opening a whole new can >>> of >>> worms, but nothing compares to what we are looking at now when >>> trying to >>> traverse NAT, support mobility, multihoming, etc. for each >>> application >>> protocol and their various flavors separately. >> >> yes, that is what HIP is about (i.e., implementing those functions >> at a lower layer so that they do not have to be redesigned by every >> single application-layer protocol). >> > > This asks the question "Why don't we believe in HIP in this role?" > > Is it because we've seen HIP struggling to advance for many years and > think we can move more quickly? > > Is it because we think the IETF's immune system will suppress HIP but > that application-level work can move through? > > Is it because we think that doing this stuff at the HIP level requires > widespread OS and IP stack changes, but that we can deploy application- > level solutions without it? > > Is it because we think that if HIP solves the problems, then there > will be no fun work left to do on applications? > > Or is there something else? > > There must be some reason, as I would think that if people really > believed in HIP that the entire resources of the IETF would be bent > towards getting it wrapped up and ready to go, since solving these > problems again and again for every different application makes no more > sense than would reinventing IP for every application. > > -- > Dean _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
