On Jun 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, David Bryan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was recently asked to update the concepts draft and discuss the important > issues. The pass that has been made is largely around normalizing the text to > be compliant with the terminology of RFC 6940, but it certainly will need an > additional pass after a few questions to the group: > > To move this draft forward, there are a few open issues/questions: > > MAJOR OPEN ISSUE: The initial wording in the high-level description > about proving AoR to contact mapping reflects a very long and > contentious debate about the role of the protocol, and reflected a > pretense that this was an overlay only for P2PSIP. That is not > really true in base anymore (see last paragraph of introduction) and > the language has been very much genericized in base. Should we make > this text more abstract and then use AoR->contact mapping as an > example of the (original) use? On a related note, see the last > paragraph of the Background section -- do we want to reword this? > > (my thought would be to make the text more generic, and mention that the > AoR->contact mapping is the most popular usage…) Agree > > OPEN ISSUE: Should we include a section that documents previous > decisions made, to preserve the historical debate and prevent past > issues from being raised in the future, or simply rely on the mailing > list to address these concerns? > > (I don't think we want to do this. Huge (and largely unneeded) can of worms, > but it has been in the open issues section for some time and should be at > least asked of the list) No, we don’t need to do this > > OPEN ISSUE: Should we include the use cases from > draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now long expired)? There was > some interest in doing so in previous versions, but no conclusion was > reached. > > (given the current stage of the group, I would say these aren't likely to be > useful anymore, but again, as it is currently listed as an open issue in the > draft, need to check) Nah, I don’t think it is necessary, or even that useful at this point > > The final open issue is do we want to advance the draft? In discussion with > the chairs and some folks, it seems the answer is yes, there is useful > material and we should push the draft out, but I wanted to discuss. Assuming > there is still interest, I'd also welcome any comments on the draft...I'm > sure I missed a few spots where it no longer aligns with 6940. I would like to see this finished. > > David > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
