[P2PSIP] Terminology - no WG names

[Henning Schulzrinne <hgs at cs.columbia.edu>]

In writing the revised draft, I took another look at the terminology  
document. In general, I think it's a really bad idea to label terms  
with the working group name. The name will be meaningless to non-IETF  
participants, i.e., 99% of developers, and will cease to have any  
meaning once the working group fades from memory. (I don't think  
P2PSIP wants to become another DHC or AVT WG...) In addition, the  
prefix doesn't really define anything, except recursively whatever the  
working group decided to work on. Thus, a P2PSIP overlay is the  
overlay defined by the P2PSIP working group, which is...

For example, I would suggest

resource discovery overlay

for our main work item.

On a related note, I would also suggest changing 'peer ID' to 'node  
ID', since we seem to have some agreement that clients, as future  
peers, would be identified by the same construct. But saying "a client  
has a peer ID, but isn't a peer" doesn't seem to further understanding.

Henning
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
P2PSIP at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip