Re: [decentralization] p2p working group/standards
- On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Dan Moniz wrote:
> >> 1) What is needed (or wanted) by most p2p developers thatThis remind me: Has anyone given thought to using SLP for discovery of
> >> would actually be worth standardizing?
> >> 2) Are there any "plumbing" or mundane tasks, that every app
> >> could benefit from?
> 1. Peer discovery
nearby peers? I bet it would work great in dorms and corporate LANs.
I think peer discovery and directories (i.e. name->IP mappings, where the
name may be user@host style (Jabber, SIP), or free-form, or a public
key) are something that could definitely be shared among systems.
> 2. Common communications frameworkInvisible Worlds is pushing something through the IETF to this effect (the
name keeps changing; I don't remember the latest one). I'm surprised at
the lack of discussion about that.
> Furthermore, the direction has been to do less encryption at the level ofTLS lower-level than SSL? I don't think so. The problem with IPSec is that
> SSL and more at the level of TLS (which is lower level) and IP, which I
> think is a more sustainable solution long-term, combined with things like
> DNSSEC and newer, less complex, more functional revisions of IPSEC.
(AFAIK) it has to be in the networking stack, which is quite an
engineering challenge compared to userspace code.
I'll save the rest for my talk. :-)
Wesley Felter - wesf@... - http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/wesf/
- Justin Chapweske said:
> ... switch to SHA-1.Probably going to SHA-1 isn't too big of a problem. I'll bring it up with
> The biggest group that I havn't yet talked to about this is the Gnutella
> guys, but I'm sure they'd be into it as well. Any Gnutellians on the
those that I know. Interestingly, there are ways to add file hashes within
the existing protocol specifications - it should even be backwards