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