I agree with Bruce. In addition:
Diagnostics are a combination of techniques. The methods specified in the
draft are one of them. They may well be other approaches such as state
acquisition of a node and overlay crawl through overlay operator managed
nodes. A node regularly needs to perform overlay maintenance operations.
It may need to be specified when does a node switch to a 'diagnostic mode'.
An overlay operator may be interested in gathering a 'health report' of
the overlay. When the overlay size is 'small', such information can easily
be overlayed on a geographical map (we used this approach in our OpenVoIP
system). Diagnostics may play a role here.
As a procedural comment, I think the diagnostic document track should be
'Experimental' or 'Informational' until we have gained sufficient
understanding of the protocol methods and required information from
practical deployments.
-salman
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, Bruce Lowekamp wrote:
I've been in favor of adoption, and I am not going to change my opinion now.
However, I have some serious concerns about this draft, and the
revisions have not addressed them. When the revision was posted, it
should have been announced on the list and the changes made to it
brought to the attention of the wg members for discussion.
I have technical concerns with this draft that have been mentioned
before (OWD can't be measured the way this draft proposes, and I don't
believe the multiple-responses-for-an-echo-request technique should be
supported).
There are also some issues with duplication of functionality between
base methods and the new methods defined. I think this is something
we can address later as a working group.
I don't understand why the "diagnostic server" material was added to
this revision. I think it should be removed. If something like this
is desired, it should be entirely separate.
Bruce
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 5:13 PM, David A. Bryan <[email protected]> wrote:
Looking for objections, since we had consensus in the room in Minneapolis.
Thanks for clarifying!
David (as chair)
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Dan York <[email protected]> wrote:
David,
Are you expecting us to send messages to the list agreeing with this? Or
are you taking the lack of *dissenting* messages as a sign of consensus?
Dan
P.S. I agree with this action, by the way, and did hum to adopt in the room
in Minneapolis.
On Dec 26, 2008, at 10:08 AM, David A. Bryan wrote:
In Minneapolis, there was a hum taken which indicated rough consensus
to move towards adopting the P2PSIP diagnostics draft as a working
group item. Since there were also a number of corrections/changes
requested, the chairs asked the authors to iterate the draft and post
it, and then we would verify the consensus on list.
The authors posted the revisions to the draft a few weeks ago:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zheng-p2psip-diagnose-04.txt
I'd like to ask for list consensus to verify the consensus from the
meeting in favor of adopting this work as a WG item.
David (as chair)
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
--
Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
Office of the CTO Voxeo Corporation [email protected]
Phone: +1-407-455-5859 Skype: danyork http://www.voxeo.com
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
Build voice applications based on open standards.
Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
