At Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:43:54 -0800,
Henry Sinnreich wrote:
>
> There is an astonishing agreement in terms used in academic papers,
> and even with what is the in the Wikipedia. Why not use these
> terms?
>
> A glossary for p2p targeted at SIP seems to be necessary, but until
> there are volunteers to write it, using the common terminology found
> in the p2p literature and in the Wikipedia seems the best choice.
> Your quote of the paper Rhea's "handling churn" in usenix'04 is
> fortunate indeed, since it is a good start.
>
> There are many more p2p papers at http://opendht.org/pubs.html and
> they all have the terminology well under control.
>
> So why not use the terminology used at http://opendht.org/pubs.html
> and in Wikipedia? (Where applicable - exceptions should be
> explained).
I'm not Bruce, but I don't think this moves the ball forward very far.
To quote Bruce's message:
I had actually spent some time a few weeks ago looking at
this, and as far as I can tell, there isn't a universal
terminology here.
I know that when I have introduced new terms for RELOAD, I've tried
to use consistent terms if there were any that seemed appropriate
and I suspect Bruce has done the same--including complaining about
some of mine that weren't as standard asyou might have liked.
ISTM that if there are people who believe that a given term in the draft
doesn't match common academic usage (or perhaps some Platonic terminology
ideal) then it's incumbent on them to explain which terms are wrong,
what they need to be changed to, and why.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
