Subject: Re: [SAM] [p2prg] New survey draft on P2P group management (fwd)

From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:44:16 -0700

Dear Authors,

you are proposing a taxonomy of P2P group management. I read your draft, 
looked at your presentation slides, and can provide the following comments:

In general, I was lost in the document, as it was not clear to me what 
this actually addresses. You target at "group management" which actually 
is a core operation for group communication solutions. However, I could 
not clearly see that you address group communication in the sense, that 
the communication model you regard and draw examples from actually is in 
groups (as distinguished from other multiparty approaches like swarm 
routing or mesh-building techniques ...).

Correspondingly, you present a (somewhat random) collection of Example 
Solutions in Section 2. These examples are partly from the group 
communication area, partly they are not. In particular, they seem far 
from exploring the design space of group management, and do not always 
represent initial contributions (P2P group management did not start in 
the year 2003).

IMHO it would be useful to compile an overview of all major group 
management mechanisms that are around, and it will be good practice to 
give credits to those who invented them or first transferred them into 
the P2P world. I would highly appreciate to see this overview 
categorized in a number of useful categories like performance, 
cost/overhead, flexibility, scaling ...

The taxonomy you propose, I cannot really follow. This is for several 
reasons. At first, your "high-level properties" don't appear sharp nor 
relevant to me (What difference does it make that some group is formed 
for conferencing or for collaboration?). Second you enumerate categories 
that are orthogonal to each other (e.g., knowledge sharing : 
security/trust). Third you are cutting out the measures above that are 
of typical concern.

Personally, I would think that a clear focus of the document and a 
stringent, rigorous and relevant categorization would be a great 
improvement.

Two additional suggestions:

  * Can you provide your long report to the community?
  * As this is a group topic, it might make sense to get SAMRG involved.

Best regards,

Thomas

On 24.03.2010 12:42, Mika Ylianttila wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as present co-author, I will say few words in the meeting, mainly to
> point out this work we have done, kind of "as per your request".
>
> Presentation slides summarizing the draft can be now found at the
> IETF77 meeting materials page:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/77/materials.html
> --> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/10mar/slides/P2PRG-7.pdf
>
> Discussion topics:
> - need of this type of taxonomy as Informational RFC? (based on previous
> discussions we assume yes)
> - scope and extent of the draft
> - should it be simplified (how)
> - less example solutions?
> - less categories (what)?
> - should it be clarified (how)
> - are the naming conventions clear enough?
> - should it extended (how)
> - for example. maybe additional criteria assessing the feasibility or
> performance of the solution. However, this is propably topic for
> further studies and maybe in the solution space.
> - as other solutions emerge, maybe some updates/extensions. This is also
> future topic.
>
> Hope you find time to provide some input.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Mika Ylianttila
> (at IETF77)
>
>
>
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Erkki Harjula wrote:
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> In the previous P2PRG meeting in Stockholm, we presented a draft on
>> peer-to-peer based group management. In the meeting, we received
>> multiple comments pointing out that there is a need for a
>> comprehensive survey on existing and proposed group management
>> mechanisms.
>>
>> Thus, before proceeding with the solution draft, we decided to write a
>> separate survey-type draft presenting the existing and proposed P2P
>> group management solutions in the literature. The draft is called
>> "Taxonomy for P2P Group Management Solutions". It provides an analysis
>> and the taxonomy of the existing and proposed P2P group management
>> solutions.
>>
>> The draft can be found at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-kassinen-p2psip-group-taxonomy-00
>>
>> We would be grateful for your comments.
>>
>> BR, Erkki
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2prg mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg
>>
> _______________________________________________
> p2prg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2prg

-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °

---

From: Bill Yeager <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:57:55 -0700

One can also note that JXTA has had peer groups since it was initially  
architected in 2000. Their use has been publicly available since the  
Project JXTA launch in April, 2001.

Bill

On Mar 26, 2010, at 4:44 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:

> Dear Authors,
>
> you are proposing a taxonomy of P2P group management. I read your  
> draft, looked at your presentation slides, and can provide the  
> following comments:
>
> In general, I was lost in the document, as it was not clear to me  
> what this actually addresses. You target at "group management" which  
> actually is a core operation for group communication solutions.  
> However, I could not clearly see that you address group  
> communication in the sense, that the communication model you regard  
> and draw examples from actually is in groups (as distinguished from  
> other multiparty approaches like swarm routing or mesh-building  
> techniques ...).
>
> Correspondingly, you present a (somewhat random) collection of  
> Example Solutions in Section 2. These examples are partly from the  
> group communication area, partly they are not. In particular, they  
> seem far from exploring the design space of group management, and do  
> not always represent initial contributions (P2P group management did  
> not start in the year 2003).
>
> management mechanisms that are around, and it will be good practice  
> to give credits to those who invented them or first transferred them  
> into the P2P world. I would highly appreciate to see this overview  
> categorized in a number of useful categories like performance, cost/ 
> overhead, flexibility, scaling ...
>
> The taxonomy you propose, I cannot really follow. This is for  
> several reasons. At first, your "high-level properties" don't appear  
> sharp nor relevant to me (What difference does it make that some  
> group is formed for conferencing or for collaboration?). Second you  
> enumerate categories that are orthogonal to each other (e.g.,  
> knowledge sharing : security/trust). Third you are cutting out the  
> measures above that are of typical concern.
>