draft-ietf-p2psip-concepts-03 D. A. Bryan, P. Matthews, E. Shim, D. Willis and S. Dawkins IETF-79, Beijing China, November 12, 2010
Update on Concepts • As RELOAD was adopted as the direction for the protocol, WG directed authors of Concepts to: • When RELOAD stabilized, update to reflect decisions made by WG • Update / interface with RELOAD authors to ensure that terminology was consistent • Now that RELOAD has gone to WGLC, authors have iterated concepts with goal of meeting the goals above and moving concepts to WGLC shortly
Major Changes • Updated to reflect RELOAD design decisions and architecture • VERY much would appreciate a good read to ensure we made all the required updates! • Removed much of the “history” information about why we reached the decisions we did • This is discussed as an open issue in the next slides
Open Issue #1 • Should we include information about historical decisions? • Reasons For: Helps eliminate people coming later and asking why we reached the decisions we did. Documents in one place the motivations behind the current design • Reasons Against: Increases the bulk of the document. The debates can be controversial, so accurately capturing it can be hard. Mailing list archive captures this process already. • Proposal: Has been removed in the current version, and we propose leaving it out. • Alternate: Add as an appendix?
Open Issue #2 • Do we include the scenarios from draft-bryan-p2psip-app-scenarios-00 (now expired) • While never included in a previous revision, but there was occasional WG discussion to include them • Would need to be significantly revisited and cleaned up to reflect subsequent WG consensus • Reasons Against: Increases the bulk of the document. Needed early, but most are now obvious and well understood. • Reasons For: Documents application scenarios. Not captured elsewhere. • Proposal: Do not include at all. • Alternate: Include as an appendix in draft.
Next Steps • Editors plan to revise to reflect the decisions on these WG items, and ask to move to WGLC • Would very much like reviewers, particularly to ensure that we captured all the changes required to have the draft agree with the decisions made in RELOAD