Subject: [p2p-sip] New P2P SIP use cases internet-draft

From: enrico.marocco at TILAB.COM (Enrico Marocco)
Date: Thu Dec 1 04:21:48 2005

The draft looks pretty good!

I'm just in doubt about section 3.3.3: isn't that case quite similar to
NAT traversal, PSTN gateway and so on?
If we decide to limit the scope to very basic features, we'll do better
dropping it; otherwise, a more general use case should be described IMHO.

Cheers
Enrico

David A. Bryan wrote:
> Eunsoo Shim, Bruce Lowekamp, and myself have completed an attempt at
> collecting some use cases for P2P SIP and submitted this work as an
> informational internet-draft. Until it becomes available in the
> archive, the document can be viewed here:
> 
> http://www.p2psip.org/drafts/draft-bryan-sipping-p2p-usecases-00.html
> http://www.p2psip.org/drafts/draft-bryan-sipping-p2p-usecases-00.txt
> 
> We look forward to any comments, corrections, complaints, or additions
> from the list.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David Bryan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-sip mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/p2p-sip

Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

====================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to
[email-masked]. Thank you
====================================================================

---

From: eunsoo at research.panasonic.com (Eunsoo Shim)
Date: Sun Dec 4 05:35:26 2005

>The draft looks pretty good!
Glad to hear that. :-)

>NAT traversal, PSTN gateway and so on?
I guess you are thinking of similarity of possible implementations in
that all those require discovery of a gateway/relay.
That can be one way of looking at use cases.
But I think the draft focuses on 'where and when P2P SIP can be useful'.
Sorting out technical (requirements on implementation) differences and
similarities between use cases is an important task we got to do soon.

>dropping it; otherwise, a more general use case should be described IMHO.
Narrowing down the scope is certainly important.
For that, I think two aspects should be considered:
- Importance of use cases
         Discuss on what uses cases we want to support most at least in
the beginning or
                            what use cases we think are most important.
- Approachability of use cases
         Analyze (guess) technical differences and similarities between
use cases and try to assess technical difficulties.
         Select use cases more approachable.
 
I understand you already touched the second aspect of section 3.3.3.

While we discuss about the scope, I'd say the use cases draft serves as
the pool of use cases from which we extract our target applications of
the initial scope that will be described in the charter. So, I suggest
we try to collect more use cases in the use cases draft rather than trim
down the draft. We will be able to use the draft to figure out the
future scope later, that is, it will be useful for the future as well as
for now.

Once we define the initial target use cases (for the initial scope), we
will put them in the charter in a reasonable fashion.

What do you think?
Thanks.

Eunsoo