* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

P2psip Status Pages

Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol (Concluded WG)
Art Area: Barry Leiba, Murray Kucherawy | 2007-Feb-21 — 2016-Dec-23 
Chairs
 
 


2016-04-07 charter

Peer-to-Peer Session Initiation Protocol (p2psip)
-------------------------------------------------

 Charter

 Current Status: Active

 Chairs:
     Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
     Carlos J├ęsus Bernardos <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>

 Applications and Real-Time Area Directors:
     Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
     Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
     Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>

 Applications and Real-Time Area Advisor:
     Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>

 Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion: p2psip@ietf.org
     To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
     Archive:            https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/p2psip/

Description of 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.

    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
    differ from P2PSIP peers primarily in that they do not store
    information in the overlay, but only use it to locate users and
    resources. P2PSIP clients and peers use the resolution services of the
    peers as an alternative to the SIP discovery process of RFC 3263. In
    this way, P2PSIP offers an alternative mechanism for determining the
    correct destination for SIP requests. The working group's initial
    charter scope will be to produce protocols to enable this alternate
    mechanism for RFC 3263 functionality. Session management, messaging,
    and presence functions are performed using conventional 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. Optionally, 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 P2PSIP
    Client Protocol is a syntactic subset of the P2PSIP Peer Protocol, and
    whether the P2PSIP Client Protocol builds on the SIP protocol.

    4. A usage document. This document will address how the protocols
    defined above, along with existing IETF protocols, can be used to
    produce systems to locate a P2PSIP peer or client, identify appropriate
    resources to facilitate communications (for example media relays), and
    establish communications between the users of these P2PSIP peers or
    clients, without relying on centralized servers. Additionally, the
    document will explain how P2PSIP and conventional SIP entities can
    interoperate.

    The initial work will assume the existence of some enrollment process
    that provides a unique user name, credentials, and an initial set of
    bootstrap nodes if that is required by the protocols. Developing a
    non-centralized enrollment process is not in scope.

    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
    presented to the BEHAVE or MMUSIC working groups.

    The working group will assume 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 WG will avoid making
    protocol design decisions that would preclude the creation of anonymous
    communications systems using techniques such as onion routing to
    conceal the IP addresses of P2PSIP peers.

    P2P networks pose unique security and privacy problems because an
    adversarial relationship may exist between nodes. Attackers can mount
    both integrity attacks on the stored data and denial of service
    attacks on the system as a whole. The WG will not attempt a solution
    to these issues for P2P networks in general. In order to simplify this
    problem, the WG will assume that all participants in the system are
    issued unique identities and credentials through some mechanism not in
    the scope of this working group, such as a centralized server, and
    that the data stored in the network will be authenticated by the
    storing entity in order to address the integrity issue and to some
    extent alleviate the DoS issue. Because signaling dialogs may be
    routed through intermediate P2PSIP peers which may be untrusted by the
    originating SIP UA, the WG will address the issue of establishing
    authenticated signaling dialogs through such untrusted relays.

    P2P systems also have privacy issues because the nodes that store data
    objects and route requests are unrelated to the clients which want to
    communicate. In the design of the P2PSIP protocol, the WG will assess
    these privacy issues and determine to what extent they need to be
    alleviated. The protocol document will contain a complete description
    of the privacy properties of P2PSIP.

    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 for locating users and resources. Approaches based on these
    technologies may be reasonable ways to solve similar problems but that
    is not the focus of this WG. These techniques may be in-scope for
    locating bootstrap peers/servers or for interoperation with
    conventional SIP.




Goals and Milestones:
  Done     - WGLC of P2PSIP Peer Protocol document
  Done     - WGLC of P2PSIP Diagnostics document
  Done     - WGLC of P2PSIP Direct Response Draft
  Done     - WGLC of P2PSIP Relay Response Draft
  Feb 2013 - Submit P2PSIP Peer Protocol document to the IESG (PS)
  Feb 2013 - WGLC of P2PSIP Self-Tuning document
  Feb 2013 - WGLC of P2PSIP Service Discovery document
  Feb 2013 - Submit -00 draft on Configuration of Access Control Policy in RELOAD
  Jul 2013 - WGLC of P2PSIP Concepts document
  Jul 2013 - WGLC of P2PSIP SIP Usage document
  Jul 2013 - Submit P2PSIP Diagnostics document to the IESG (PS)
  Jul 2013 - Submit P2PSIP Self-Tuning document to the IESG (PS)
  Jul 2013 - Submit P2PSIP Service Discovery document to the IESG (PS)
  Oct 2013 - Submit P2PSIP SIP Usage document to the IESG (PS)
  Oct 2013 - Submit P2PSIP Concepts document to the IESG (Informational)


All charter page changes, including changes to draft-list, rfc-list and milestones:



Generated from PyHt script /wg/p2psip/charters.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -