RE: [decentralization] p2p working group/standards
- I think to some extent you are correct. I'm less in touch with IETF, but I
do follow the W3C pretty closely and am currently on the XML protocol
working group. The biggest problem that I see with W3C is that the group
doesn't really think about peer issues considering its client/server (or
browser/server ?) heritage. That was why I decided to hang with the XML
protocol working group -- to learn what people were thinking about and where
we might interject a little "peer thinking" into the process.
Intel appears to have jumped into the P2P space because they've missed
virtually every other Internet initiative and don't want to miss this one.
But the recent turn of events at the P2PWG, where Intel's role was
significantly de-emphasized, is important. And as a community of P2P
developers, I think it's important to educate the market and look for places
where we can work together. While those of us who use P2P technology see it
as empowering, many enterprises see it as subversive. That's an image that
needs to change if we want P2P to be accepted by everyone from consumers to
the Global 2000. By pulling together a working group to explore the P2P
issues more specifically and begin to educate the market, we'll have a
better chance of introducing this technology into the enterprise.
There is tremendous history surrounding industry or technology oriented
working groups, including Open Applications Group, RosettaNet, and BPMI.
These organizations help build relationships between the member groups, an
important element to legitimizing the software that we are working on.
As Ben Franklin said -- if we don't hang together, we'll all hang
jeffrey kay <jkay@...>
chief technology officer, engenia software, inc.
"first get your facts, then you can distort them at your leisure" -- mark
"golf is an endless series of tragedies obscured by the occasional miracle"
-- sports illustrated
"if A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X is
work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." -- albert einstein
From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: [decentralization] p2p working group/standards
>>Granted (and to some extent, agreed), but this doesn't really answer thequestion.
OK, you're right of course.
My own believe is that IETF and W3C are already working on this stuff.
If I want to work with a standard body for peer protocols that's where I'm
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
- 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