My recollection may be wrong - I did not go back and listen to the
minutes but I seem to recall that at the end of the reload base spec
discussion, the people in the meeting felt it was ready for WGLC
after the updates discussed in the meeting were made. I think that
should be in the minutes.
Thanks, Cullen in my individual contributor roll.
On Nov 15, 2009, at 7:03 , David A. Bryan wrote:
I've posted DRAFT minutes for the P2PSIP meeting at IETF-76. Please
take a look, comment, and provide any suggestions/corrections or
additions:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/minutes/p2psip.htm
There are a few hums from the meeting that we will be taking to list
shortly for WG list discussion as well.
Thanks,
David (as chair)
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
Adding the notes in the link above to email below so they are in the
email archive
-----------------------
IETF-76 P2PSIP Meeting notes (DRAFT)
Note takers Jim McEachern and Spencer Dawkins. Edited/compared with
audio by David Bryan.
REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD) Base Protocol,
Cullen Jennings,
draft-ietf-p2psip-base-05
Most points for discussion on slides are cosmetic/minor editorial,
with a few exceptions.
The draft is completely wrong for calculating the signatures.
Proposal to use Michael Chen’s suggested change. Group indicated that
this path was supported.
Turn density. The system needs an algorithm for this to work, and
this approach works, even though it is almost trivial. Propose to
just leave it as is since the system is not very sensitive to this
(see below). However, he will update the draft to document some of
the limitations of this approach and to point to better algorithms
that might be considered in future work. David Bryan asked from Jabber
room about the slide stating it should be used since studies and
experiments indicated it worked well enough and was robust if you got
it wrong.
David noted this assertion had been controversial before, and asked
where he could find these studies indicating it worked, and Cullen
indicated that the authors had not shared them publicly and felt it
was too much work to publish the results. Indicated that there was an
opportunity for more work in this area for a general service discovery
algorithm.
Self Tuning: Proposal to include information on successors and
predecessors in Leave messages as it is very helpful for the work in
the self tuning draft. Cullen was interested in what the group
thought. Comment in favor of including this as a should. Cullen will
do that for the next draft.
Other Issues. None
Robert raised “open issues” in the document.
Reactive recovery. People keep suggesting they will provide input,
but they don’t provide anything. Cullen is therefore proposing to
delete this as an open issue.
Cullen’s view is that once he updates this document with these changes
and there is time to review, this will be ready to go to a WG last
call. Consensus of the room was to do so.
David Bryan asked substitute chairs to get a list of reviewers who
would do a full review of the document:
Looking for detailed reviewers
• John Buford
• Robert Sparks
• Jouni Maenpaa
P2PSIP Security Overview and Risk Analysis
Song Haibin
draft-matuszewski-p2psip-security-overview-01
Presentation outlined the two changes that were made to the
presentation. Asked if there were any additional comments.
Cullen said that he had trouble commenting because he was unclear as
to exactly what the purpose of this document was. Without that, it is
hard to comment.
From Jabber room David mentioned that in an earlier meeting the
consensus was for this to provide guidance to people new to P2P about
the unique security issues and implications.
An extension to RELOAD to support Direct Response and Relay Peer routing
Ning Zong
draft-jiang-p2psip-relay-03
Comparison of DRR/RPR vs. SRR and the number of messages and hops.
Questions from Cullen about exactly what is being analyzed since the
number of messages seems low to him, especially if they include the
entire TLS handshake. Roni Even says that it does include the TLS
handshake. Cullen is unconvinced. Agreed to take this offline to
investigate further.
The authors feel they have addressed the comments and that it is an
optional method for particular deployment scenarios.
Load balancing models for DHT-based Peer-to-Peer Networks
Erikki Harjula
draft-harjula-p2psip-loadbalancing-survey-00
Load balancing is critical, but DHT does not achieve acceptable load
balancing. Therefore more analysis is needed.
Most techniques use:
- measure load
- distribute load information
- balance the load
Of the many methods, they focus on four.
• Virtual servers:
• Controlling object location
• controlling node location
• address space balancing
Summarized a brief analysis of the attributes of each method,
including cost in that analysis. This analysis is very tentative, and
they plan to extend the analysis to provide significantly more detail.
Only two people have read the draft
A Self-tuning Distributed Hash Table (DHT) for REsource LOcation And
Discovery (RELOAD),
Jouni Mäenpää,
draft-maenpaa-p2psip-self-tuning-01,
Previous version did self tuning and load balancing. Current version
is self tuning only.
With static parameters approach it is not possible to have both low
stabilization overhead and low failure rate.
Self tuning allows parameters to change. Each peer collects data and
uses this to dynamically adjust parameters.
Question to the group as to whether or not the group would be
interested in having a milestone related to self tuning. Support was
expressed for this work, but not that many people have read it. Jon
encouraged the work to continue, but with such limited audience, was
reluctant to adopt it as a work group. Jouni countered that we had
that situation at the last meeting and that if it became a WG item,
then perhaps more people would actually read it. Extended discussion,
with everyone generally supporting this work.
Jon asked how many people understood the problem that this
addressing. About 20-30 people raised their hands.
Poll: How many people think that the WG should have a charter item to
address this problem? Result - Audible support and no objections.
Poll: Should this draft be used as input into that charter item?
Result - Audible support and no objections.
Jon said they would pass this along to the ADs for consideration.
Service Discovery Usage for REsource LOcation And Discovery (RELOAD)
Jouni Mäenpää,
draft-maenpaa-p2psip-service-discovery-00
Outlines a proposal for a generic service discovery mechanism
Poll: Should we be defining a generic service discovery mechanism for
p2psip? Result – lukewarm interest, with no objections.
Conclusion. Encouraged to continue working on this and bring it to
the list to continue generating interest.
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
