Subject: [p2p-sip] Protocol Choice

From: RoyR at saic-abingdon.com (Roy, Radhika (AEAD))
Date: Wed Sep 14 10:29:44 2005

OK, I got it. I have the topic as "P2P Protocol Choice."

Definitely, we need to look into all alternatives for p2p communications protocols. In fact, this should be the first task of this proposed new WG to do this evaluation.

The other important requirements for the p2p communications are as follows:

"P2P communications protocol MUST support both real-time and near/non-real-time communications."

Best regards,
Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 8:51 PM
To: Roy, Radhika (AEAD); 'Dean Willis'
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Stastny Richard'; 'Tschofenig, Hannes'
Subject: RE: [p2p-sip] P2P and 911 (again)

> It looks like that p2p-SIP BOF did not explain enough why it needs to form
the new WG

There are many protocol choices and design decisions to be made for P2P SIP,
such as for example the choices discussed for the p2p protocol messages
(generic Chord or SIP messages), p2p at the UA level or in the SIP server
cloud; single level or multilevel SIP p2p server clouds., etc.

Just take a look at the wealth of contributions at www.p2psip.org 

The dominant VoIP service is P2P and is not based on IETF work. 
We do not want the IETF to miss the reality completely on the Internet.

Thanks, Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy, Radhika (AEAD) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:10 PM
To: Dean Willis
Cc: [email-masked]; Stastny Richard; Tschofenig, Hannes
Subject: RE: [p2p-sip] P2P and 911 (again)

It looks like that p2p-SIP BOF did not explain enough why it needs to form
the new WG. Let us discuss the necessity for forming a new WG and find out
the probable work items.

However, like many other items, whether E911 and CALEA will be a part of the
p2p-SIP WG is a different story.

So, if the new WG needs to be formed, it must justify the items other than
E911 and CALEA.

Best regards,
Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dean Willis
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:55 PM
To: Roy, Radhika (AEAD)
Cc: [email-masked]; Stastny Richard; Tschofenig, Hannes
Subject: Re: [p2p-sip] P2P and 911 (again)

Nope. We're supposed to discuss the objectives, and decide whether or 
not it really does require new work outside the scope of existing WGs, 
and if so, exactly what that new scope should be. If this leads us to 
the formation of a new working group, that's fine -- but forming a new 
working group is NOT the only reasonable outcome.

--
Dean

On Aug 19, 2005, at 2:05 PM, Roy, Radhika ((AEAD)) wrote:

> Hi, all:
> ?
> Is it not the case that SIP P2P BOF is supposed to explain why we need 
> to establish a new SIP P2P WG because it requires new P2P protocol 
> developments what SIP WG cannot do?
> ?
> Best regards,
> Radhika
>