P2PSIP Charter Proposal Many people helped write this charter…

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Comparison between Skype and SIP- based Peer-to-Peer Voice-Over-IP Overlay Network Johnson Lee EECE 565 Data Communications.
Advertisements

Scope Discussion Seems to be a good deal of interest in moving this toward a working group If we want to work toward this, we need to have a clearly defined.
Draft-bryan-sipping-p2p David Bryan IETF 63, Paris August 3, 2005.
1 Improved DNS Server Selection for Multi-Homed Nodes draft-savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection-04 Teemu Savolainen (Nokia) Jun-ya Kato (NTT) MIF WG meeting.
Creating Architectural Descriptions. Outline Standardizing architectural descriptions: The IEEE has published, “Recommended Practice for Architectural.
P2P Application Classes and the IETF What do we have? : What are we missing? David Bryan P2PSIP WG co-chair Polycom July 28, 2011.
IETF P2P Mechanisms Wes Eddy / TSV AD MTI Systems TSVAREA IETF 81 – Quebec City, July 2011.
IETF 64 P2PSIP AdHoc Meeting Remembrance Day November 11, 2005 Vancouver, BC, Canada David A. Bryan.
SIMULATING A MOBILE PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK Simo Sibakov Department of Communications and Networking (Comnet) Helsinki University of Technology Supervisor:
Issues of HIP in an Operators Network Nick Papadoglou Thomas Dietz.
Document IPW-41 IP and Telecoms Interworking Workshop N umbering, Naming Addressing and Routing IETF EMUM WG Proposal International Telecommunication Union.
 Introduction  VoIP  P2P Systems  Skype  SIP  Skype - SIP Similarities and Differences  Conclusion.
SIPREC Conference Recording (draft-kyzivat-siprec-conference-use-cases-01) IETF 89, March 7, 2014 Authors: Michael Yan, Paul Kyzivat, Simon Romano.
BEHAVE BOF (Behavior Engineering for Hindrance AVoidancE) Cullen Jennings Jiri Kuthan.
MASS / DKIM BOF IETF – Paris 4 Août 2005 dkim.org  mipassoc.org/mass IETF – Paris 4 Août 2005 dkim.org  mipassoc.org/mass MIPA.
Mdnsext BoF Chairs: Tim Chown, Thomas Narten IETF85 Atlanta 6 th November, 2012.
IETF – ECRIT Emergency Context Resolution using Internet Technologies ESW 5 – Vienna October 2008 Marc Linsner.
71th IETF, Philadelphia, March 2008 ROLL Working Group Meeting IETF-71, March 2008, Philadelphia Online Agenda and Slides at:
March 12, 2008© Copyright 2008 John Buford SAM Overlay Protocol draft-buford-irtf-sam-overlay-protocol-01.txt John Buford, Avaya Labs Research IETF 71.
Softwire IETF 78. Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and.
XCON WG IETF-73 Meeting Instant Messaging Sessions with a Centralized Conferencing (XCON) System draft-boulton-xcon-session-chat-02 Authors: Chris Boulton.
© 2007 Open Grid Forum Data Grid Management Systems: Standard API - community development Arun Jagatheesan, San Diego Supercomputer Center & iRODS.org.
EAI WG meeting IETF-65, March 20, Agenda 17:40 Welcome, blue sheet, scribe, agenda bashing 17:50 Review of WG charter (approved) 17:55 Problem/framing:
Mary Barnes (WG co-chair) Cullen Jennings (WG co-chair) DISPATCH WG IETF 89.
ALTO BOF Charter Discussion. Charter Iterated (twice) on the list  Several comments on the first version Terminology, caching  No complains on current.
Doc.: IEEE /0691r0 Submission May 2011 Dorothy Stanley, Aruba NetworksSlide 1 IEEE IETF Liaison Report Date: Authors:
PAWS Protocol to Access White Space DB IETF 81 Gabor Bajko, Brian Rosen.
Requirements for SIP-based VoIP Interconnection (BCP) draft-natale-sip-voip-requirements-00.txt Bob Natale For Consideration by the.
July 17, 2003IETF 57 - Wien, Österreich1 lemonade Eric Burger Glenn Parsons
Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) WG Interim Meeting, Monday, January 7,
Peer to Peer Streaming Protocol (PPSP) BOF Gonzalo Camarillo Ericsson Yunfei Zhang China Mobile IETF76, Hiroshima, Japan 13:00~15:00 THURSDAY, Nov 12,
The mandate of this working group is to facilitate effective service interoperability utilizing SIP in heterogeneous network environments as noted below.
SIPeerior Technologies A superior way to connect Emerging IETF Standards Work on P2PSIP David A. Bryan.
Protocol Requirements draft-bryan-p2psip-requirements-00.txt D. Bryan/SIPeerior-editor S. Baset/Columbia University M. Matuszewski/Nokia H. Sinnreich/Adobe.
Application Layer Multicast Extensions to RELOAD draft-kolberg-sam-baseline-protocol-01 Mario Kolberg, University of Stirling, UK (Editor) John Buford,
GEONET Brainstorming Document. Content Purpose of the document Brainstorming process / plan Proposed charter Assumptions Use cases Problem description.
Moving towards an IRS WG Charter Ross Callon IETF 85, Atlanta.
SIP-Based or DHT-Based? November 12, 2005 Eunsoo Shim Panasonic Digital Networking Laboratory P2P SIP Ad-hoc Meeting IETF64, Vancouver.
Agenda Marc Blanchet and Chris Weber July 2011 IRI WG IETF 81 1.
CLUE WG chair: Mary Barnes RTCWEB WG chair: Ted Hardie CLUE & RTCWEB WGs Adhoc Common (SDP/RTP) building blocks IETF-82.
SIMPLE Working Group IETF 59 Chairs Hisham Khartabil Robert Sparks.
Area Structure and Participant Recruitment RAI Area Open Meeting
Layer 2 Control Protocol BoF (L2CP) IETF 65, Dallas, TX Wojciech Dec Matthew Bocci
GEONET Brainstorming Document. Content Purpose of the document Brainstorming process / plan Proposed charter Assumptions Use cases Problem description.
1 P2PSIP Peer Protocol Design Questions Presenter: Philip Matthews (based on input from the authors of the various proposals)
MODERN BoF Managing, Ordering, Distributing, Exposing, and Registering telephone Numbers IETF 92.
Page 1 IETF DRINKS Working Group Data Model and Protocol Requirements for DRINKS IETF 72 - Thursday July Tom Creighton -
WREC Working Group IETF 49, San Diego Co-Chairs: Mark Nottingham Ian Cooper WREC Working Group.
Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO3) NVO3 Meeting, IETF 90, Toronto Benson Schliesser Matthew Bocci
SALUD WG IETF 78 Maastricht Friday, July 30, London Chair: Dale R. Worley.
SIPREC Conference Recording (draft-kyzivat-siprec-conference-use-cases-00) IETF 87, November 4, 2013 Authors: Michael Yan, Paul Kyzivat, Simon Romano.
SOSIMPLE: A Serverless, Standards- based, P2P SIP Communication System David A. Bryan and Bruce B. Lowekamp College of William and Mary Cullen Jennings.
P2P Cullen Jennings Out of scope Mechanisms File Sharing Fluffy’s Hair XCAP.
Mary Barnes (WG co-chair) Cullen Jennings (WG co-chair) DISPATCH WG IETF-86.
SIP Working Group IETF Chairs -- Rohan MAHY Dean WILLIS.
XCON WG IETF-64 Meeting Centralized Conferencing (XCON) using the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) draft-boulton-xcon-msrp-conferencing-02 Editors:
Innovations in P2P Communications David A. Bryan College of William and Mary April 11, 2006 Advisor: Bruce B. Lowekamp.
1 Session Recording Protocol Requirements and Charter IETF 76, Hiroshima Andy Hutton and Leon Portman on behalf of the team Draft authors: Kenneth Rehor,
1 Charter 2.0 chairs. 2 Description of Working Group The Working Group will focus on enabling IPv6 over the TSCH mode of the.
XCON WG IETF-64 Meeting XCON Framework Overview & Issues
Peer to peer Internet telephony challenges, status and trend
SIP Performance Benchmarking
Peer-to-peer SIP Ad-hoc meeting
Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
CHAPTER 3 Architectures for Distributed Systems
draft-bryan-sipping-p2p
lemonade Eric Burger Glenn Parsons November 10, 2003
Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
IETF 87 DHC WG Berlin, Germany Thursday, 1 August, 2013
Peer-to-peer SIP Ad-hoc meeting
Presentation transcript:

P2PSIP Charter Proposal Many people helped write this charter…

Heading and such… Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol (P2PSIP) Chairs: TBD RAI Area Director(s): Cullen Jennings and Jon Peterson RAI Area Advisor: Cullen Jennings Mailing Lists: General Discussion: Subscribe at: Archive at:

Description of the Working Group: The Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Session Initiation Protocol working group (P2PSIP WG) is chartered to develop protocols and mechanisms for the use of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) in settings where the service of establishing and managing sessions is principally handled by a collection of intelligent endpoints, rather than centralized servers as in SIP as currently deployed. A number of cases where such an architecture is desirable have been documented in [1]. The terminology and concepts draft [2] explains the terms and concepts used here. The work focuses on collections of nodes called "P2PSIP peers" and "P2PSIP clients". P2PSIP peers manifest a distributed namespace in which overlay users are identified and provides mechanisms for locating users or resources within the P2PSIP overlay. P2PSIP clients and peers use the resolution services of the peers as an alternative to the SIP discovery process of RFC Session management, messaging, and presence functions are performed using traditional SIP.

This group's primary tasks are to produce: 1.An overview document explaining concepts, terminology, rationale and illustrative use cases for the remaining work. 2.A proposed standard defining a P2PSIP Peer Protocol. This protocol is used between P2PSIP overlay peers, some of which may be behind NATs. This protocol will define how the P2PSIP peers collectively provide for user and resource location in a SIP environment with no or minimal centralized servers. This protocol may or may not be syntactically based on SIP, a decision to be made by the WG. The group will identify and require one base P2P algorithm (likely a particular Distributed Hash Table (DHT) algorithm), while allowing for additional optional algorithms in the future. 3.A proposed standard defining a P2PSIP Client Protocol for use by P2PSIP clients, some of which may be behind NATs. This protocol will define how the P2PSIP clients query and/or modify, the resource location information of the overlay. While clearly a logical subset of the P2PSIP Protocol, the WG will determine if the client protocol is a syntactic subset of the peer protocol, and whether the client protocol builds on the SIP protocol. 4.An applicability statement. This document will address how the protocols defined above, along with existing IETF protocols, can be used to produce systems to locate a user, identify appropriate resources to facilitate communications (for example media relays), and establish communications between the users, without relying on centralized servers.

Other WGs, NATs, Anonymity The work planned for the P2PSIP working group is distinct from, but requires close participation with other IETF WGs, particularly SIP, SIPPING, SIMPLE, BEHAVE and MMUSIC. The group cannot modify the baseline SIP behavior, define a new version of SIP, or attempt to produce a parallel protocol for session establishment. If the group determines that any capabilities requiring an extension to SIP are needed, the group will seek to define such extensions within the SIP working group using the SIP change process (RFC 3427). Similarly, existing tools developed in the BEHAVE and MMUSIC groups will be used for NAT traversal, with extensions or changes desired to support P2PSIP created in these groups. The working group takes it as a fact that NATs and firewalls exist in the Internet, and will ensure that the protocols produced work in their presence as much as possible. Similarly, the group will attempt not to make design decisions that preclude anonymous communications systems from being crafted using the protocols defined by this WG.

Excluded Topics The following topics are excluded from the Working Group's scope: 1.Issues specific to applications other than locating users and resources for SIP-based communications and presence. 2.Solving "research" type questions related to P2PSIP or P2P in general. The WG will instead forward such work to the IRTF P2PRG or other RG as appropriate. Examples include fully distributed schemes for assuring unique user identities and the development of P2P-based replacements for DNS. 3.Locating resources based on something other than URIs. In other words, arbitrary search of attributes is out of scope, but locating resources based on their URIs is in scope. Using URIs need not imply using the DNS or having a record in the DNS for the URI. 4.Multicast and dynamic DNS based approaches as the core lookup mechanism locating users and resources. These techniques may be in-scope for locating bootstrap peers/servers or for interoperation with traditional SIP.

Goals and Milestones Sep 2007 Submit P2PSIP overview document to the IESG (Informational) Sep 2008 Submit P2PSIP overlay client protocol document to the IESG (Standards track) Sep 2008 Submit P2PSIP overlay peer protocol document to the IESG (Standards track) May 2009 Submit P2PSIP applicability statement to the IESG (Standards track) References [1] D. Bryan, E. Shim, B. B. Lowekamp, "Use Cases for Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol (P2PSIP)", draft-bryan-sipping-p2p-usecases (work-in-progress) [2] D. Willis, D. Bryan, P. Matthews, E. Shim, "Concepts and Terminology for Peer to Peer SIP”, draft-willis-p2psip-concepts (work-in-progress)