Re: [IAB] Call for Comments: "Peer-to-peer (P2P) Architectures"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Stalisnav,

thanks for your answer. The document was already approved by the IAB a while ago and it is now in AUTH48, where changes are meant to be very small. In any case, I agree with you that your suggestion will improve the title and set readers' expectations more correctly. I will fix that.

Regarding bittorrent and skype, the document already lists them as P2P systems. In the case of bittorrent, a whole section of the document describes it as a P2P system. In the case of Skype, the document uses it as an example of a P2P application. Therefore, I think the document is clear in that area.


Thanks,

Gonzalo

Stanislav Shalunov wrote:
Gonzalo,

I now see how my initial reading of the document was informed mainly by expectations set by the title and the abstract. I suspect that I might be alone in this. If the title and the abstract were to better reflect the content and to avoid what I read as overpromise, the document would be much improved.

I see you've already changed the abstract to refer to multiple taxonomies. This is helpful, thank you.

I was actually initially confused by the title, "Peer-to-peer (P2P) Architectures". The sort of thing that came to my mind reading that title was a discussion of several architectures that would include design philosophy considerations, main architectural ideas from the P2P world, toolbox, tradeoffs, applicability of techniques, architectural design choices made by particular P2P apps, the motivation of the choices, consequences of the choices, and such. The document does have architectural guidance on when to use P2P as opposed to a server-based arch, but the plural of "architectures" in the title primed me for a discussion of peer protocol choice and design, organization mechanisms to use in the system, and generally something that'd get a server-based protocol jock sufficiently informed about P2P to design working P2P systems rather than to conclude that a given application looks like a potential match for a P2P approach.

If the document were to have a different title, my mindset diving in would be different. If the title more precisely reflected the content I would take the document for what it is instead of expecting something that wasn't intended to be there.

How about "Peer-to-peer (P2P) architecture: definition, examples, and applicability" for a title? Something along those lines would definitely help me get the right idea of the document.

I've taken the liberty to massage the abstract:

We define P2P, explain how a P2P architecture differs from a client/server architecture, and provide a non-exhaustive survey of P2P systems and of their taxonomies. We discuss the applicability of P2P and tradeoffs between client/server and P2P and how the best choice depends on the properties and the requirements of the application.

Also, I'd consider pulling out the definition, which currently starts with "We consider" into a paragraph marked with something like "Definition:" at the beginning -- or just the first paragraph of the corresponding section.

And still, I'd suggest making it more clear that, say, BitTorrent, which has trackers, or Skype, which has a website where you can manage your account, are, indeed, P2P systems, despite the fact that they have elements that only provide and don't consume a service.

Let me know what you think,
-- Stas


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]