Justin Cormack wrote: > > > I would be interested in trying to take a P2P protocol through the > IETF policy process. > > I think it should be something like BT - quite simple in terms of > implementation, but with a good usage history. Using the whole IETF > stack isnt necessary to get approval, eg using http - a case could be > made for not using http but it might lose out. Of course if the ietf > protocol wasnt interoperable with BT (and the divergent BT-like > protocols) it might not be successful. But having any P2P protocol > ietf approved would be a very good step. It wouldnt help anyone in > the short term.
As far as I know, BT is a file distribution protocol. For the standardization purposes I think it would be better to distinguish between P2P transport and file distribution on a top of this transport. Transport protocol should provide: - peer discovery - NAT traversal - p2p data transfer - similar for what TCP sockets does for the normal network traffic The following transport features are optional (may be implemented as a higher-level protocols), but it is very considerable to integrate them with the core transport protocol: - authentication and encryption mechanisms, suitable for P2P usage. - presence indication - session initiation Please note also, to the best of my knowledge, there is still no published NAT traversal scheme, comparable on its quality to, say, Hamachi. Published NAT traversal mechanisms, like ICE, lacks some important knowledge, critical for the high-probability NAT traversal. _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
