Michael,
Agreed, we're talking about application and presentation layer P2P at this
point.
Thomas,
The answers to your question are probably open-ended at this time, I would
think, but if we work backwards from some of the desirable scenarios then
we can think of potential solutions that can work in a well-layered model.
Think of the village-market town scenarios that I outlined earlier as one
potential paradigm - work from the worst P2P networking conditions on up to
the best, perhaps - from sneakernet to Bluetooth/WiFiDirect to Mesh to IP.
Ideal scenario - people are "waving" without even knowing it as they walk
by people who are in their waves.
Food for thought.
John
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Michael MacFadden <
michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> At the moment we are talking about the OT algorithms, not how the nodes
> physically communicate. As was previously discussed, there very well
> could still be one or more servers in the picture. This is about where
> and how the concurrency control occurs. At the moment a single sever
> (even when federating) is in control of all concurrency control. This is
> what we are trying to avoid. Even if there are still servers, the OT
> should be a P2P OT algorithm.
>
> ~Michael
>
> On 6/22/13 12:03 PM, "Thomas Wrobel" <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Sorry as this has probably been explained - but if client p2p is a
> >possibility, how will clients find eachother :?
> >Surely everyone would need static external IPs - which simply isn't
> >the case with the web today.
> >
> >This is mostly all over my head - but I have never even seen a web
> >based p2p chat program before. I thought it simply wasn't possible to
> >communicate between two browsers without a sever between them.
> >
> >or does p2p mean something different in this context?
> >
> >On 22 June 2013 18:53, John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Michael,
> >>
> >> I like that way that you put it. Hopefully what we wind up with is a
> >> protocol that is fundamentally P2P but which interacts with servers as
> >> ultra-efficient UI-less peers equipped with some super-powers and
> >>services
> >> that may not be present in the P2P domain persistently. Call it p2p2P,
> >>so
> >> to speak. John
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Michael MacFadden <
> >> michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> MY humble opinion on the P2P issue is as follows. I think if we
> >>>develop
> >>> algorithms that can work in a P2P mode, then we can also support a
> >>> client/server architecture as well by just controlling who the peers
> >>>talk
> >>> to. I think the problem with wave was not the client server
> >>>architecture,
> >>> but rather the way the servers interacted with each other. The servers
> >>> themselves implemented something like a client/server relationship
> >>>within
> >>> federation. This meant that even if you were connected to your local
> >>>wave
> >>> server, if that wave server could not communicate with the wave server
> >>> that initiated the wave, you were out of luck.
> >>>
> >>> I am not against having servers at all. In fact I think that things
> >>>get
> >>> very complicated if you have no servers what so ever (document storage,
> >>> discovery, users, etc.). But if we need to make sure servers are
> >>>peers.
> >>> So we need a P2P style OT algorithm. Again do not confuse a P2P
> >>>network
> >>> topology (DHT, etc) with P2P OT Algorithms. A P2P OT Algorithm can
> >>>also
> >>> easily be made to behave like a Client/Server OT algorithm, where as
> >>>the
> >>> reverse is not feasible.
> >>>
> >>> ~Michael
> >>>
> >>> On 6/21/13 5:46 PM, "Sam Nelson" <so...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Wow, that was some heavy reading (:
> >>> >
> >>> >This section raised some questions for me:
> >>> >
> >>> >*4) Routing p2p messages/events in a pure P2P system (5 parts)*
> >>> >How to manage to route all wave-stuff if we want to completely get
> >>>rid of
> >>> >servers completely, and only use peers.
> >>> >The closest way would be to use a DHT, but huge latency is an unsolved
> >>> >problem, and makes it impossible to use for real-time waving.
> >>> >No other solution has been proposed.
> >>> >
> >>> >My question is simply, perhaps naively: why pure p2p?
> >>> >Originally when I heard of p2p OT I saw it as a way to collaboratively
> >>> >work offline in a LAN environment, and to sync pairs that are almost
> >>> >always offline, by means of a proxy peer that moves between WAN and
> >>>the
> >>> >offline LAN. The peers would talk in much the same way that two
> >>> >federating servers would, using their offline caches as a datasource
> >>> >instead I'm guessingthis is like the MESH network John refers to.
> >>> >
> >>> >When talking about P2P between peers /over the internet/ - could
> >>> >somebody please explain to be the purpose of and vision for this? Why
> >>> >not just use a server, it seems to simplify things alot? (Firewalls,
> >>> >authentication - can do offline like Windows 8 does with Microsoft
> >>> >Account)
> >>> >
> >>> >Is purep2p just for privacy? Or is it really for alternate uses of the
> >>> >protocol - other than the the documents and conversation use cases we
> >>> >saw in Google Wave?
> >>> >
> >>> >Just an idea, in order to "open the eyes" of those drawn to this
> >>>mailing
> >>> >list, might it be beneficial to build up a wiki page of accepted use
> >>> >cases so that everyone can read them and take them into account when
> >>> >considering different ideas? That'd facilitate discussions like "well
> >>> >this works for all our use cases except #13.... <discussion ensues
> >>>about
> >>> >this case>"
> >>> >
> >>> >Sam
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >On 22/06/2013 01:06, John Blossom wrote:
> >>> >> Bruno,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks, this is an excellent summary. It helps me to get the gist of
> >>> >>things
> >>> >> more clearly.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On the P2P latency, I don't think that it would be unacceptable to
> >>>draw
> >>> >>a
> >>> >> line and say that P2P provides limited, non-guaranteed realtime OT
> >>>or
> >>> >>that
> >>> >> it's not realtime OT and more of a syncing mode than a conversation
> >>> >>mode.
> >>> >> That would probably be sufficient for what needs to be done,
> >>>especially
> >>> >> since in some instances P2P-enabled Wave sessions may be using MESH
> >>> >> networks for transport - a key factor in how a lot of experimental
> >>> >> communications services are being deployed in developing nations
> >>>(not
> >>> >>just
> >>> >> the Project Loon concept). In the MESH model, you're likely to have
> >>>one
> >>> >> node within range of another temporarily, which may sync with it,
> >>>and
> >>> >>then
> >>> >> pass along data to another node when it comes in range of it.
> >>>That's the
> >>> >> most probable scenario for P2P in many instances, I would think. The
> >>> >>other
> >>> >> potential scenario: two people in a remote location, for the sake of
> >>> >> argument two movie script-writers who have holed themselves up in a
> >>> >>remote
> >>> >> location to collaborate on a common script. They're on two devices
> >>>that
> >>> >>are
> >>> >> very proximate to one another, so perhaps the latency issues will
> >>>not
> >>> >>be so
> >>> >> severe.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Things to think about, I will look at this more carefully later
> >>>today.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> All the best,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> John Blossom
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) <
> >>> >> sten...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Following Joseph's "A Very Wavey Plan (P2P!)" thread, a couple of
> >>> >>> discussions have taken place at the irc.freenode.net #wiab
> channel,
> >>> all
> >>> >>> related to P2P.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I've taken the liberty to restructure the IRC logs, remove some
> >>> >>>chitchat,
> >>> >>> and divide it into sub-discussions. Feel free to reply to any part
> >>>of
> >>> >>>this
> >>> >>> email to continue a discussion.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *Summary of discussions:*
> >>> >>> *====================*
> >>> >>> *1) Underlying protocol for P2P federation*
> >>> >>> Currently XMPP is used. HTTP and raw TCP are two suggested
> >>>candidates
> >>> >>>(HTTP
> >>> >>> allowing to much more easily reach restricted networks).
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *2) Message/event types needed for P2P federation to work*
> >>> >>> We'd need something similar in concept to certain git operations
> >>>(git
> >>> >>> clone, git push...). All will be based on hashes (not incremental
> >>> >>> integers).
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *3) Routing p2p messages/events in a server-aided network*
> >>> >>> One option is to somehow detect server clusters, send data to one
> >>>of
> >>> >>>them,
> >>> >>> and let the rest of the cluster servers synchronize to it
> >>>(locally).
> >>> >>> Alternatively, the originator server can naively send stuff to all
> >>> >>>possible
> >>> >>> destination servers, regardless of the cost.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *4) Routing p2p messages/events in a pure P2P system (5 parts)*
> >>> >>> How to manage to route all wave-stuff if we want to completely get
> >>>rid
> >>> >>>of
> >>> >>> servers completely, and only use peers.
> >>> >>> The closest way would be to use a DHT, but huge latency is an
> >>>unsolved
> >>> >>> problem, and makes it impossible to use for real-time waving.
> >>> >>> No other solution has been proposed.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *5) Implementing "undo": invertibility, tombstones, edge cases,
> >>>TP2*
> >>> >>> No server means no canonical order of commits, which means that
> >>>undo is
> >>> >>> hard to do correctly.
> >>> >>> (uhm... not sure if that's a good summary, some stuff went over my
> >>>head
> >>> >>> :-D, please read the log instead)
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *6) Usability of a pure p2p system in Real Life (tm)*
> >>> >>> Being pragmatic, pure P2P is probably only usable in peers with
> >>>good
> >>> >>> connectivity. Rest of peers will need to rely on a server/proxy
> >>>that
> >>> >>>*does*
> >>> >>> have good connectivity.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *7) Comparison with BitTorrent and P2P-TV technologies*
> >>> >>> Both technologies are much less restricted than wave with regards
> >>>to
> >>> >>> real-time responsiveness. So none are really a good reference for
> >>>our
> >>> >>> purposes.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *8) Identifying participants (3 parts)*
> >>> >>> Pure p2p means many peers don't have a
> >>>name@centralized-server.comuser
> >>> >>> handle, so an alternative has to be used.
> >>> >>> However, it's easy to provide a traditional friendly handle, if the
> >>> >>>user
> >>> >>> prefers the tradeoff of having to often rely on a permanent server.
> >>> >>>This
> >>> >>> tradeoff can be mitigated by using a sort of userhandle cache.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *9) P2P anonymity (lurking in a wave) (2 parts)*
> >>> >>> In a pure p2p wave network, anonymous peers may want to read a
> >>>public
> >>> >>>wave,
> >>> >>> without other peers knowing. A solution could be to make private
> >>>the
> >>> >>> required wavelets (where the anonymous participants IDs are
> >>>stored).
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *10) Encryption of waves*
> >>> >>> It's been proposed to use an AES key to encrypt all the wave data,
> >>>and
> >>> >>>only
> >>> >>> allow participants to decrypt it.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *11) Addition and removal of participants, and their ability to
> >>>read
> >>> >>>past
> >>> >>> and future wave versions/deltas*
> >>> >>> The aforementioned AES key can change over time, allowing a
> >>> >>>finer-grained
> >>> >>> restriction of what deltas new/removed participants can read.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *
> >>> >>> *
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *Actual conversations:*
> >>> >>> *====================*
> >>> >>> *
> >>> >>> *
> >>> >>> *1) Underlying protocol for P2P federation:*
> >>> >>> [in response to Joseph's email]
> >>> >>> [23:42] <alown> I [...] agree with option 2 (make every root a JSON
> >>> >>>blob)
> >>> >>> [23:43] <alown> You haven't really detailed (at all) how the P2P
> >>> >>>federation
> >>> >>> is actually going to work (beyond 'not like IRC')
> >>> >>> [23:44] <josephg> Personally, I'd love some raw TCP action
> >>> >>> [23:44] <alown> I agree using KISS principle.
> >>> >>> [23:44] <josephg> a few years ago (not long after wave was
> >>>cancelled)
> >>> >>>there
> >>> >>> was a 'wave summit'
> >>> >>> [23:45] <josephg> - and a few of us chatted about how we could
> >>>make the
> >>> >>> federation protocol simpler
> >>> >>> [23:45] <josephg> we ended up (somehow) deciding that doing it over
> >>> >>>http
> >>> >>> woul dbe a good idea
> >>> >>> [23:45] <josephg> because then we could sneak it into companies
> >>>past
> >>> >>>their
> >>> >>> corporate HTTP firewalls, etc
> >>> >>> [23:45] <josephg> but in any case, I'd like to figure out the
> >>>protocol
> >>> >>>and
> >>> >>> (at least) have a TCP version
> >>> >>> [23:46] <josephg> it should be pretty easy to wrap the same
> >>>messages in
> >>> >>> websockets if we want
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *2) **Message/event types needed for P2P federation to work:*
> >>> >>> [23:46] <alown> Do we need anything more complicated than the
> >>> >>> waveletSubmit/Commit messages used currently?
> >>> >>> [23:46] <alown> (Replace wavelet with 'abstract p2p ot container
> >>>name)
> >>> >>> [23:46] <josephg> um, yeah.
> >>> >>> [23:47] <josephg> we'll also be able to rip out all the code that
> >>>deals
> >>> >>> with managing the tree of servers per wave
> >>> >>> [23:47] <josephg> but yeah - the protocol will get a bit more
> >>> >>>complicated
> >>> >>> [23:47] <josephg> ... because we'll lose our beautiful integer
> >>>version
> >>> >>> numbers
> >>> >>> [23:47] <josephg> so we'll need a protocol for syncronizing ops
> >>> >>> [23:48] <josephg> yeah - ops will each have a hash
> >>> >>> [23:48] <josephg> and two servers could each have ops the other
> >>>server
> >>> >>> doesn't have
> >>> >>> [23:48] <josephg> so we have to be able to deal with that
> >>> >>> [23:47] <alown> What other 'events' are cared about by any
> >>>particular
> >>> >>> server?
> >>> >>> [23:47] <alown> For a SHA hash?
> >>> >>> [23:48] <josephg> -> we'll need something like git's sync protocol
> >>> >>> [23:48] <alown> So, initial server contact is 'git clone', and then
> >>> >>>some
> >>> >>> form of 'git push' on changes?
> >>> >>> [23:49] <josephg> yep.
> >>> >>> [23:49] <josephg> push on changes is easy - its basically the same
> >>> >>>thing we
> >>> >>> have now
> >>> >>> [23:49] <josephg> just instead of saying "This should be applied at
> >>> >>>version
> >>> >>> 10" we say "This op has parents [abc123, def456]"
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *3) **Routing **p2p **messages/events in a server-aided network:*
> >>> >>> [23:49] <alown> With P2P do we have to broadcast to all peers? How
> >>>do
> >>> >>>we
> >>> >>> coordinate that between them?
> >>> >>> [23:50] <josephg> between servers? I dunno.
> >>> >>> [23:50] <alown> How does BT handle this?
> >>> >>> [23:50] <josephg> should we just connect every server to every
> >>>other
> >>> >>> server? That'd work fine...
> >>> >>> [23:50] <josephg> I guess every server can address every other
> >>>server
> >>> >>> [23:50] <josephg> beacuse the wave will have al...@a.com and
> >>> >>> josephg@b.comand so on on it
> >>> >>> [23:50] <alown> This feels very inefficent...
> >>> >>> [23:51] <josephg> so if you submit an op to your server, your
> >>>server
> >>> >>>can go
> >>> >>> "Oh, I need to tell b.com about this too"
> >>> >>> [23:51] <josephg> well, if there's 10 servers, presumably all 10
> >>> >>>servers
> >>> >>> need to find out about ops somehow.
> >>> >>> [23:51] <josephg> - assuming we stick with the current model of
> >>>having
> >>> >>> servers store all your operations
> >>> >>> [23:51] <josephg> .. and documents for all the users at their
> >>>domain
> >>> >>> [23:51] <alown> But server 'b' and 'c' might both be part of a
> >>>wave,
> >>> >>>but
> >>> >>> also know each other, and know that they are 'closer' to each other
> >>> >>>than
> >>> >>> 'a' is. So, we would want a->b/c then b<->c
> >>> >>> [23:52] <josephg> so actually, having the server which originates
> >>>an
> >>> >>> operation send it to all the other servers on that wave is actually
> >>> >>>close
> >>> >>> to ideal.
> >>> >>> [23:52] <josephg> yeah maybe.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *4) **Routing **p2p **messages/events in a pure P2P system (part
> >>>1):*
> >>> >>> [23:54] <alown> BT uses DHT for its P2P stuff...
> >>> >>> [23:54] <josephg> ...I guess we could use a DHT storing all the
> >>>ops,
> >>> >>>but
> >>> >>> thats pretty slow
> >>> >>> [23:55] <josephg> and you still need to notify all servers with
> >>>users
> >>> >>>on
> >>> >>> the wave that the wave was updated.
> >>> >>> [23:55] <alown> Maybe, or perhaps only notify those within a
> >>>certain
> >>> >>> 'distance', with each server doing that. (Though could mean some
> >>> >>>servers
> >>> >>> are never updated)
> >>> >>> [23:58] <alown> Perhaps we could make the network setup
> >>>'SuperWaves'
> >>> >>>which
> >>> >>> broadcast to all peers, and carry all information, but normal wave
> >>> >>>servers
> >>> >>> do not reach this status?
> >>> >>> [23:58] <alown> By having it decide itself based on how
> >>>'connected' a
> >>> >>> server is, this could find the most efficent ways to route it.
> >>> >>> [00:01] <josephg> Do you think it'll really be a problem?
> >>> >>> [00:01] <josephg> I mean, thinking about it - how many servers
> >>>will be
> >>> >>>on a
> >>> >>> given wave?
> >>> >>> [00:01] <alown> Depends.
> >>> >>> [00:01] <alown> No idea.
> >>> >>> [00:01] <josephg> If it were a public wave, I can imagine clients
> >>>just
> >>> >>> connecting to one (or more) centralized servers
> >>> >>> [00:01] * josephg nods
> >>> >>> [00:02] <josephg> ... But say if we were having a conversation on
> >>> >>> wave-dev@apache, there's like, at most 20 people in a discussion
> >>>from
> >>> >>>5 or
> >>> >>> so domains
> >>> >>> [00:03] <josephg> ... I think we can deal with that kind of load.
> >>> >>> [00:04] <josephg> but if the protocol lets any server tell any
> >>>other
> >>> >>>server
> >>> >>> about an operation, then it should be pretty easy to set up
> >>>something
> >>> >>>like
> >>> >>> that.
> >>> >>> [00:04] <josephg> maybe.
> >>> >>> [00:04] * josephg thinks
> >>> >>> [00:05] <josephg> hm - you're right. I think I've just gotten used
> >>>to
> >>> >>>the
> >>> >>> crappy state of doing routing for broadcasting messages to a
> >>>network
> >>> >>> [00:05] <josephg> if you can find / think of a better solution,
> >>>I'm in.
> >>> >>> [00:12] <alown> Heh, anyway replacing the network layer code
> >>>SHOULD be
> >>> >>> easy, since it SHOULD be cleanly seperated.
> >>> >>> [00:13] <alown> Getting an initial implementation up using
> >>>broadcast is
> >>> >>> fine.
> >>> >>> [00:13] <alown> (I was thinking of Wave's use in other apps as a
> >>> >>>reason you
> >>> >>> could have a lot of different participant domains)
> >>> >>> *...4) Routing **p2p **messages/events in a pure P2P system (part
> >>>2):*
> >>> >>> [08:53] <stenyak> as for the "how to *really* do p2p", i see two
> >>> >>>options:
> >>> >>> a) use a dht-like algorithm and/or b) use a helper server to route
> >>> >>>stuff
> >>> >>> for you
> >>> >>> [08:54] <stenyak> a) can be pretty slow if you want all OPs to
> >>>reach
> >>> >>>all
> >>> >>> peers (if I'm not mistaken)
> >>> >>> [08:54] <stenyak> and b) is essentially makes it not-p2p
> >>> >>> [08:55] <stenyak> additionally, using p2p, how are we going to deal
> >>> >>>with
> >>> >>> routing problems (such as firewalls on both sides, etc)?
> >>> >>> [08:56] <stenyak> in my mind, the only universal solution is to
> >>>have a
> >>> >>> third party server available to go through if we want speed or if
> >>>we
> >>> >>>want
> >>> >>> to work on all edge cases
> >>> >>> [08:56] <stenyak> and wave being advertised as realtime, i don't
> >>>see
> >>> >>>how
> >>> >>> something like dht can ever fly
> >>> >>> [11:20] <alown> stenyak: This is why I was wondering about a DHT
> >>>system
> >>> >>> with 'Superwave' servers (to act as a first point of contact).
> >>> >>> [11:59] <stenyak> that would be like skype dynamic supernode list?
> >>> >>> [11:59] <alown> The original system, yes.
> >>> >>> [12:02] <stenyak> so we would devise a method to identify
> >>>candidates to
> >>> >>> being a supernode, in order to prevent cellphone wave peers from
> >>> >>>becoming
> >>> >>> one, and in order to promot certain other nodes (like major peers
> >>>that
> >>> >>>have
> >>> >>> 99% uptime, e.g. wave.google.com or whatever) to become one
> >>> >>> [12:03] <stenyak> bandwidth, latency, open ports, uptime...
> >>> >>> [12:04] <alown> Once a network has been bootstrapped using
> >>>something,
> >>> >>>it is
> >>> >>> relatively easy to identify the hosts which are most densely
> >>>connected
> >>> >>>(and
> >>> >>> would be good supernode candidates)
> >>> >>> [12:05] <stenyak> what do you mean with "using something"?
> >>> >>> [12:06] <alown> Somehow the network has to initially be able to
> >>>make
> >>> >>> contact with other nodes (before it knows anything about them)
> >>> >>> [12:07] <alown> For a LAN you could get away with a broadcast
> >>> >>>'announce',
> >>> >>> but it is a bit less clear on an internet-sized scale.
> >>> >>> [12:08] <stenyak> bittorrent sync uses a broadcast for LAN. for
> >>> >>>internet it
> >>> >>> uses a tracker server for fast discovery of peers, or you can
> >>>disable
> >>> >>>that
> >>> >>> and force to use DHT (with the long wait that means)
> >>> >>> [12:09] <stenyak> the tracker can also act as a meeting-point for
> >>> >>> firewalled peer pairs (which in my experience is a lot of them)
> >>> >>> [12:09] <alown> Precisely the problem, because we don't really want
> >>> >>>long
> >>> >>> waits or trackers.
> >>> >>> *...4) Routing **p2p **messages/events in a pure P2P system (part
> >>>3):*
> >>> >>> [12:42] <stenyak> hmmm... i'm not sure how a peer gets a list of
> >>>waves
> >>> >>>in
> >>> >>> which he's a participant of
> >>> >>> [12:43] <alown> Having a canonical source makes it all so much
> >>>easier.
> >>> >>>:P
> >>> >>> [12:44] <stenyak> for pure p2p peers to "receive" new waves,
> >>>either the
> >>> >>> FROM or the TO peer (or both) would need to try to find their way
> >>>to
> >>> >>>the
> >>> >>> other
> >>> >>> [12:44] <stenyak> and we're assumign here that each person only
> >>>runs
> >>> >>>one
> >>> >>> peer
> >>> >>> [12:45] <stenyak> e.g. my privatekey may be used by 5 wave peers
> >>>at the
> >>> >>> same time, and we must make sure the new wave reaches all of them
> >>> >>> [12:46] <alown> Looks like we may need to have mulitple DHTs then
> >>>(one
> >>> >>>for
> >>> >>> ops, one for waves)
> >>> >>> [12:46] <stenyak> in BT, it's the receiver end who actively looks
> >>>for
> >>> >>>peers
> >>> >>> to receive from. in wave, it's not like that..
> >>> >>> [12:46] <alown> Or could we have a pubkey->wave mapping in one?
> >>> >>> [12:46] <stenyak> and in BT, you can assume *many* people has the
> >>>data
> >>> >>>you
> >>> >>> want
> >>> >>> [12:46] <stenyak> in wave, its possible and probably that only one
> >>> >>>other
> >>> >>> peer in the universe has the wave
> >>> >>> [12:46] <stenyak> (because it's a personal wave sent to you)
> >>> >>> [12:47] <alown> I would expect any long-running supernodes to be
> >>> >>>implicitly
> >>> >>> part of all waves they know about.
> >>> >>> [12:47] <alown> Though on second thought, this seems like it would
> >>>add
> >>> >>>its
> >>> >>> own problems to authentication, storage, promotion of supernodes
> >>>etc.
> >>> >>> *...4) Routing **p2p **messages/events in a pure P2P system (part
> >>>4):*
> >>> >>> [12:51] <alown> Does it make sense for a peer to have your privkey,
> >>> >>>since
> >>> >>> you could be logged in anywhere, so it would be down to the place
> >>>you
> >>> >>>are
> >>> >>> logged in, to 'subscribe' to that wave on the network, and attempt
> >>>to
> >>> >>> retrieve all data from it...
> >>> >>> [12:55] <alown> I was expecting the network as a whole to act like
> >>>a
> >>> >>> WaveBus pubsub system, whereby once 'logged in' at some server
> >>>(which
> >>> >>>means
> >>> >>> it gets your privkey from the authentication system), that server
> >>>then
> >>> >>> 'subscribes' to your waves on the 'network'. If somebody else at
> >>>some
> >>> >>>other
> >>> >>> server changes it, then that server would be announcing to the
> >>>network
> >>> >>>of a
> >>> >>> change (doesn't necesserily have to be a broadcast), which your
> >>>server
> >>> >>> would 'hear'.
> >>> >>> [12:56] <alown> You could do this from any server where you logged
> >>>in
> >>> >>> (hence the concept of a domain is lost).
> >>> >>> [12:57] <stenyak> by "server" you mean supernodes?
> >>> >>> [12:57] <alown> Not necessarily.
> >>> >>> [12:59] <stenyak> this pubsub network must be aware of nodes that
> >>>are
> >>> >>>in
> >>> >>> it, in order to directly route wave updates to them, correct?
> >>> >>> [12:59] <stenyak> and also, this network wouldn't be very
> >>>volatile, but
> >>> >>> would rather ideally be long-lived peers?
> >>> >>> [13:00] <alown> It has no reason to have to directly route updates,
> >>> >>>(though
> >>> >>> it would hopefully be able to identify the best routes
> >>>automatically).
> >>> >>> [13:00] <alown> Yes it would require a few long-lived peers (which
> >>> >>>would be
> >>> >>> part of the requirement to be a supernode).
> >>> >>> [13:01] <stenyak> so let's say i connect my laptop wave peer to the
> >>> >>> "server" in the living room, at my firewalled home. this "server"
> >>> >>>would be
> >>> >>> already subscribed to the pubsub network, and in this specific
> >>>case it
> >>> >>> would route all wave updates to me
> >>> >>> [13:02] <stenyak> in other cases (let's say, ipv6-enabled nodes
> >>> >>>everywhere,
> >>> >>> no firewall at home), the living room server could simply notify
> >>>the
> >>> >>> original "FROM" peer to send stuff to my laptop ipv6 ip, right?
> >>> >>> [13:03] <alown> That sounds right. Supernodes are really only
> >>>needed
> >>> >>>for
> >>> >>> getting the routing right.
> >>> >>> [13:05] <stenyak> ok. in both these theoretical cases, the "server"
> >>> >>>hasn't
> >>> >>> necessarily been a wave node per se (nor a supernode either), but
> >>> >>>rather a
> >>> >>> second type of wave node that helps get stuff quickly wherever it's
> >>> >>>needed
> >>> >>> [13:05] <alown> Yes.
> >>> >>> [13:05] <alown> I am not even sure where OT should be happening in
> >>>this
> >>> >>> picture...
> >>> >>> [13:05] <stenyak> if OT happens, the "server" is a blind proxy i
> >>>think
> >>> >>> [13:06] <stenyak> so does not need the privkey to work
> >>> >>> [13:07] <stenyak> unless we're also using OT in the wavebus pubusb
> >>> >>>network
> >>> >>> for some reason?
> >>> >>> [13:07] <alown> Supernodes can be blind (though they might also
> >>>just be
> >>> >>> normal well-connected wave servers). I would expect normal servers
> >>>to
> >>> >>>still
> >>> >>> be doing OT. The question is whether the 'client' (whatever that
> >>>means)
> >>> >>> should be doing it also.
> >>> >>> [13:08] <alown> The network shouldn't need OT. (Algorithms exist
> >>>that
> >>> >>>allow
> >>> >>> the incoming ops to be arbitarily queued and only processed when
> >>> >>>needed).
> >>> >>> [...]
> >>> >>> [21:21] <josephg> alown: the client always needs to do OT because
> >>> >>>otherwise
> >>> >>> they can't both edit a document live and receive operations from
> >>> >>>people who
> >>> >>> didn't have their ops.
> >>> >>> [21:22] <josephg> the server doesn't need to do OT, although if it
> >>> >>>doesn't
> >>> >>> do OT, it'll punt the OT work to its clients - which will result
> >>>in a
> >>> >>> higher CPU utilization on mobile devices.
> >>> >>> [...]
> >>> >>> [13:08] <stenyak> i pictured this "server" as being an optional
> >>>item
> >>> >>>that
> >>> >>> shortcuts the long waits of DHT, rather than something necessary
> >>>for
> >>> >>> "clients"?
> >>> >>> [13:08] <alown> Hmm.
> >>> >>> [13:08] <alown> I suppose we should define what a 'client' is
> >>>then...
> >>> >>> [13:09] <alown> We have at least 2 layers of stuff going on here:
> >>>1)
> >>> >>>Wave
> >>> >>> OT/operation layer 2) Network routing/P2P layer
> >>> >>> [13:13] <alown> But it is quite plausible something might be doing
> >>> >>>both of
> >>> >>> those
> >>> >>> [13:10] <stenyak> with your pubsub net suggestion, i was picturing
> >>>2
> >>> >>>kinds:
> >>> >>> a regular pure p2p peer, and a helper kind of node to route stuff
> >>> >>>quickly
> >>> >>> when a peer is connected to it
> >>> >>> [13:13] <stenyak> so with that picture in mind, layer 1 stuff
> >>>could go
> >>> >>> directly from peer to peer (if connectivity/firewalls allows), or
> >>> >>>through
> >>> >>> the "helper node" if available
> >>> >>> [...]
> >>> >>> [13:20] <stenyak> [...] all this discussion looks very similar to
> >>> >>> discussing how to design internet+dns, i think the problems are the
> >>> >>>same
> >>> >>> really
> >>> >>> [13:20] <stenyak> or at least we could take some inspiration from
> >>>it
> >>> >>>maybe
> >>> >>> [13:20] <alown> This was my conclusion last night with josephg.
> >>>('The
> >>> >>> problmes should already be solved (see The Internet)')
> >>> >>> [14:09] <stenyak> and The Internets solved the problem how? By
> >>>having a
> >>> >>> large set of supernodes (dns servers), that may take a whole day to
> >>> >>> propagate updates. The alternative being having the actual IP
> >>>address
> >>> >>>in
> >>> >>> the first place, or to centralize stuff
> >>> >>> [14:10] <stenyak> (aka use servers everywhere)
> >>> >>> [14:22] <alown> Maybe, but the internet's design is X (where X >
> >>>20)
> >>> >>>years
> >>> >>> old, so may not represent the most modern thinking of how to make
> >>> >>> distributed networks.
> >>> >>> [14:59] <alown> (Don't forget that our aim for Wave is at the
> >>> >>>cutting-edge
> >>> >>> of academic research also).
> >>> >>> [...]
> >>> >>> [14:50] <stenyak> i just threw the question at some friends who
> >>>should
> >>> >>>be
> >>> >>> more up-to-date with networking technologies than me... hopefully
> >>>they
> >>> >>> comeback with some revolutionary dns-2 design or something that we
> >>>can
> >>> >>>copy
> >>> >>> [15:18] <stenyak> could give as some ideas: http://openpeer.org/
> >>> >>> [15:18] <stenyak> (it's not a solution, but maybe they did the same
> >>> >>> reasoning we're going through)
> >>> >>> [15:46] <stenyak> another response i got goes along the lines of...
> >>> >>>hard as
> >>> >>> fuck, but if you manage to do it, you are a hero
> >>> >>> [...]
> >>> >>> [15:02] <stenyak> looking at it from a wider perspective, what we
> >>>want
> >>> >>>is
> >>> >>> similar to having each peer shout at the whole world "here i am,
> >>> >>>anything
> >>> >>> got something for meeee?" in some way that doesn't clog the
> >>>internet
> >>> >>>tubes,
> >>> >>> and that is so fast as shouting would be. i start to think it's not
> >>> >>> physically possible to do that...
> >>> >>> [15:03] <stenyak> if publickeys were handed to people based on the
> >>> >>> location, then we could have routing tables similar to how internet
> >>> >>> currently works
> >>> >>> [15:03] <stenyak> but pubkeys are... well, random. so that kind of
> >>> >>>routing
> >>> >>> that allows anyone to connect to an arbitrary IP in a matter of
> >>> >>> milliseconds is impossible, i believe
> >>> >>> [15:04] <alown> So, we end up with DNS for public keys?
> >>> >>> [15:04] <stenyak> something like dns, but much faster [wrt.
> >>>propagation
> >>> >>> times]
> >>> >>> [15:05] <stenyak> so in essence, a tree of servers or whatever
> >>>(which
> >>> >>>is
> >>> >>> similar to how wave currently works, right?)
> >>> >>> [15:05] <alown> Heh. But the whole point was to avoid the tree
> >>>system
> >>> >>> currently (since it is susceptible to netsplits)
> >>> >>> [...]
> >>> >>> [15:56] <stenyak> maybe the real question could be: how do we make
> >>>DHT
> >>> >>>much
> >>> >>> faster?
> >>> >>> [16:14] <stenyak> once the initial discovery process is finished,
> >>>the
> >>> >>> transmission of data will not have the lag associated with DHT, so
> >>> >>>even if
> >>> >>> DHT takes 10 seconds, that could be acceptable
> >>> >>> [16:15] <stenyak> i.e. a new peer takes 10 seconds to be
> >>>discovered by
> >>> >>>the
> >>> >>> rest of participants collaborating in a wave
> >>> >>> [16:16] <stenyak> (or viceversa.. the new peer takes 10 seconds to
> >>> >>>discover
> >>> >>> the participants)
> >>> >>> [...]
> >>> >>> [16:25] <stenyak> this could shed some light:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_hash_table#Algorithms_for_overl
> >>> >>>ay_networks
> >>> >>> [19:06] <stenyak> http://dsn.tm.kit.edu/english/2936.php
> >>> >>> *...4) Routing **p2p **messages/events in a pure P2P system (part
> >>>5):*
> >>> >>> [21:03] <josephg> [...] For now, I want wave to be p2p in the same
> >>>way
> >>> >>>that
> >>> >>> git is p2p.
> >>> >>> [21:04] <josephg> that is, I want the core algorithms & data
> >>> >>>structures to
> >>> >>> use P2P-capable algorithms, and probably the wave servers will do
> >>>p2p
> >>> >>> between themselves (this is easy because they'll all be both named
> >>>and
> >>> >>> accessable)
> >>> >>> [21:06] <josephg> as for client-to-client p2p, there's a few
> >>>options
> >>> >>> depending on what kind of use cases we want to support - but I
> >>>want to
> >>> >>> worry about getting the algorithms p2p-capable first. If you're
> >>>keen
> >>> >>>to set
> >>> >>> up an anonymous, distributed wave system over a DHT - well, I want
> >>>to
> >>> >>>first
> >>> >>> make that possible
> >>> >>> [21:15] <josephg> .... and as for ipv6, network admins _love_ NAT
> >>>now
> >>> >>>that
> >>> >>> we have it
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *5) Implementing "undo": invertibility, tombstones, edge cases,
> >>>TP2:*
> >>> >>> [00:17] <alown> I am not sure how an 'undo stack' is going to work
> >>>(at
> >>> >>>all)
> >>> >>> with federation...
> >>> >>> [00:18] <josephg> well, you just do undo at the application level
> >>> >>> [00:19] <josephg> "submit op which inserts text" ... later "submit
> >>>op
> >>> >>>which
> >>> >>> removes text"
> >>> >>> [00:19] <josephg> you don't need OT for that.
> >>> >>> [00:20] <josephg> I imagine like, a semantic undo. In the client
> >>>you
> >>> >>>can
> >>> >>> imagine making an undo op (which might not necessarily rollback an
> >>> >>> operation (because of tombstones and all that))
> >>> >>> [00:20] <josephg> ... but would seem that way as far as the user is
> >>> >>> concerned
> >>> >>> [00:21] <josephg> then if the user hits ctrl+z, you can transform
> >>>that
> >>> >>> operation up to the current version and apply it
> >>> >>> [00:21] <josephg> - the fact that its an undo isn't really
> >>>relevant.
> >>> >>> [00:21] <josephg> the bad thing about losing invertability is doing
> >>> >>> playback
> >>> >>> [00:21] <josephg> - because you can't scrub back through time
> >>> >>> [00:21] <alown> But you have all the operations since the start, so
> >>> >>>you can
> >>> >>> play forward at least?
> >>> >>> [00:23] <josephg> yeah exactly.
> >>> >>> [00:23] <josephg> ... and make like, keyframes of the document
> >>> >>> [00:23] <josephg> - and play forward from them or something.
> >>> >>> [00:23] <alown> Hmm, so you can do the step-back without
> >>>recalculating
> >>> >>>the
> >>> >>> entire document?
> >>> >>> [00:24] <alown> I don't really like the idea of then having another
> >>> >>> datastructure to have to pass around...
> >>> >>> [00:24] <josephg> right - if you have a snapshot at version 1000,
> >>>and
> >>> >>>the
> >>> >>> user is looking at 1010 and they try to step back to 1009, you can
> >>>just
> >>> >>> replay ops 1001-1009 on that version 1000 snapshot
> >>> >>> [00:24] <alown> What was the problem with invertible operations (I
> >>> >>>don't
> >>> >>> understand OT enough yet to be able to properly comment on that
> >>>side).
> >>> >>> [00:25] <alown> (Other than it confuses people?)
> >>> >>> [00:25] <josephg> hahaha actually people seem to love invertability
> >>> >>> [00:25] <josephg> I don't know why.
> >>> >>> [00:25] <josephg> I've been trying to remove it from sharejs, and
> >>> >>>everyone
> >>> >>> gets sad.
> >>> >>> [00:26] <josephg> the problem is that if I make an op which
> >>>deletes the
> >>> >>> whole document (version 100, say) then I undo that operation
> >>> >>> [00:26] <josephg> and you insert in the middle of the document at
> >>> >>>version
> >>> >>> 100, then your op gets transformed to do that insert at the start
> >>>of
> >>> >>>the
> >>> >>> document instead at version 101 (because the content has
> >>>disappeared)
> >>> >>> [00:26] <josephg> and it never goes back to the middle of the
> >>>document.
> >>> >>> [00:27] <josephg> so, with tombstones you can get around that by
> >>> >>>having a
> >>> >>> 'resurrect' operation
> >>> >>> [00:27] <josephg> (so deleting the whole document turns the whole
> >>> >>>document
> >>> >>> into tombstones, then we can resurrect them all again in the
> >>>inverse)
> >>> >>> [00:28] <josephg> but you can't invert an insert - because deleting
> >>> >>>leaves
> >>> >>> the tombstone there
> >>> >>> [00:28] <josephg> and if you have a 'real delete' operation, then
> >>>yeah,
> >>> >>> you're back in the hole
> >>> >>> [00:28] <josephg> also, with wave in particular, inverting is
> >>>really
> >>> >>> complicated
> >>> >>> [00:29] <josephg> - see, if the wave says "<annotation
> >>>bold:true>blah
> >>> >>> blah<annotation bold:false> not bolded"
> >>> >>> [00:29] <josephg> then if you insert at the end of the "blah blah",
> >>> >>>it'll
> >>> >>> automatically get bolded.
> >>> >>> [00:30] <josephg> ... so if the text isn't bolded, and then you
> >>>bold it
> >>> >>> while I insert at the end of the text, you need to make sure my
> >>>text
> >>> >>> _isn't_ bolded or something
> >>> >>> [00:31] <josephg> .... and yeah, I can't remember - but there's
> >>>these
> >>> >>> horror cases that I remember kept me from sleeping when I tried to
> >>> >>> reimplement wave's OT code in C
> >>> >>> [00:31] <alown> hmm
> >>> >>> [00:31] <josephg> and it would have been fine if it wasn't
> >>>invertible.
> >>> >>> Well, at least it would have been tollerable.
> >>> >>> [00:33] <josephg> So yeah. Conclusion: You can make invertability
> >>> >>>work, but
> >>> >>> its kind of a bitch, and you can't make it work for TP2
> >>> >>> [00:33] <josephg> which means it won't work if we're federating
> >>> >>> [00:33] <alown> How are we hacking around that currently then?
> >>> >>> [00:33] <josephg> well, we don't do TP2
> >>> >>> [00:34] <josephg> remember, federation just uses a bad version of
> >>>the
> >>> >>> current client-server protocol
> >>> >>> [00:34] <josephg> - arranged in a tree of servers
> >>> >>> [00:34] * alown goes and looks up which one TP2 was again
> >>> >>> [00:35] <josephg> ... its the one that says you don't need a
> >>>canonical
> >>> >>> ordering of operations
> >>> >>> [00:35] <josephg> sharejs and wave both use the server to pick the
> >>> >>>order of
> >>> >>> operations (based on which order they reach the server)
> >>> >>> [00:35] <josephg> and then they use incrementing version numbers
> >>>based
> >>> >>>on
> >>> >>> that order
> >>> >>> [00:35] <alown> ah yep.
> >>> >>> [00:35] <josephg> -> for p2p, that doesn't work because you don't
> >>>have
> >>> >>>a
> >>> >>> centralized server, and anyone can send messages to anyone
> >>> >>> [00:36] <josephg> and yeah, you need TP2 for that (which sort of
> >>>says
> >>> >>>you
> >>> >>> can apply ops from 3 different sites in any order and it still
> >>>works)
> >>> >>> [00:37] <josephg> - and apparently someone proved that if you make
> >>>it
> >>> >>>work
> >>> >>> for 3 sites, it works for any number of sites
> >>> >>> [00:43] <alown> Anyhow, I can see leaving inversion out for
> >>> >>>simplicity, but
> >>> >>> don't yet understand why it can't be made to work with TP2.
> >>> >>> [00:59] <alown> Hmm. Seen 'A Sequence Transformation Algorithm for
> >>> >>> Supporting Cooperative work on Mobile Devices'?
> >>> >>> [01:02] <josephg>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/connect/cscw_10/do
> >>> >>>cs/p159.pdf
> >>> >>> ?
> >>> >>> [01:15] <alown> The main feature is its use of storing local/remote
> >>> >>> operations and processing them much later than receipt time.
> >>> >>> [01:17] <alown> ABT satisfies TP1+2, so looks like this should(?)
> >>> >>> [01:19] <josephg> need to read it
> >>> >>> [01:19] <josephg> ... I'll go through it later
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *6) Usability of a pure p2p system in Real Life (tm):*
> >>> >>> [12:13] <alown> We also don't know if storing ops in a DHT is
> >>>efficent
> >>> >>> enough for our use case...
> >>> >>> [12:14] <stenyak> in any case, let's say i fire up my wavep2p
> >>>android
> >>> >>> client and want to check for any new waves
> >>> >>> [12:14] <stenyak> i definitely won't put up with a wait of 30
> >>>seconds
> >>> >>>when
> >>> >>> i have "this damn fast 4g connection!" in my cellphone
> >>> >>> [12:14] <stenyak> i mean, that's the point of view of six pack joe
> >>> >>> [12:14] <stenyak> and joe is definitely right..
> >>> >>> [12:15] * alown thinks of the hours it took to download the bitcoin
> >>> >>> blockchain from the p2p system
> >>> >>> [12:15] <stenyak> or browse through freenet, or whatever... its
> >>>painly
> >>> >>>slow
> >>> >>> [12:16] <stenyak> in the end, i think that most users won't be
> >>>running
> >>> >>>a
> >>> >>> full blown peer, but will be relying on an external server instead
> >>> >>> [12:16] <stenyak> i.e. nobody runs their own email servers nowadays
> >>> >>> [12:16] <stenyak> and the same can happen with wave
> >>> >>> [12:16] <alown> Should a mobile client be doing the full p2p
> >>> >>>federation, or
> >>> >>> simply talking to a server which does it...
> >>> >>> [12:16] <stenyak> the few who decide to run a full-blown wave peer,
> >>> >>>should
> >>> >>> be aware of the problems
> >>> >>> [12:17] <alown> So, this should be less of a problem since the only
> >>> >>>nodes
> >>> >>> doing p2p will be proper full-time connected servers?
> >>> >>> [12:17] <stenyak> the thing is, we can assume most people wont
> >>>fire up
> >>> >>> their own xmpp server, but go for jabber.org account
> >>> >>> [12:17] <stenyak> and the same thing will presumably happen for
> >>>wave,
> >>> >>> simply because it's easier to do
> >>> >>> [12:18] <stenyak> which doesn't pervent me from running my own
> >>> >>>full-blown
> >>> >>> wave server
> >>> >>> [12:18] <stenyak> but that's a use case in which the user knows the
> >>> >>> limitations
> >>> >>> [12:19] <stenyak> [...] you and i will run several full-blown wave
> >>> >>>peers at
> >>> >>> home, at our parent's house, or whatever, but we'll know and
> >>>accept the
> >>> >>> problems
> >>> >>> [12:19] <stenyak> i think that's the way to think about the problem
> >>> >>> [12:19] <stenyak> heck, most people use github for permanent [git]
> >>> >>> connectivity ;-)
> >>> >>> [12:19] <stenyak> instead of opening ports to their laptop in
> >>>their lan
> >>> >>> [12:19] <stenyak> and those are the tech-savvy people...
> >>> >>> [12:20] <alown> So, we have a p2p system between wave servers and
> >>> >>>superwave
> >>> >>> servers, with clients connecting to the server rather than doing
> >>>the
> >>> >>>p2p
> >>> >>> itself...
> >>> >>> [12:20] <stenyak> i'm not saying it's the way we should do it. i'm
> >>> >>>saying
> >>> >>> that's the way it most probably will pan out, because it's already
> >>> >>> hapennign in 100% of the existing p2p protocols i know of
> >>> >>> [12:20] <alown> Hmm...
> >>> >>> [12:21] <stenyak> so we should plan for that instead of a
> >>>theoretical
> >>> >>>pure
> >>> >>> p2p world
> >>> >>> [12:21] <stenyak> if we assume there's servers like github,
> >>>bitbucket
> >>> >>>and
> >>> >>> sourceforge, then suddently most of the problems go away, while
> >>>still
> >>> >>>not
> >>> >>> preventing from people to run fully p2p if they want
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *7) Comparison with BitTorrent and P2P-TV technologies:*
> >>> >>> [12:21] <alown> BT doesn't have huge servers (and with magnet has
> >>> >>>actually
> >>> >>> move in the opposite direction).
> >>> >>> [12:21] <stenyak> BT has no real-time needs
> >>> >>> [12:22] <stenyak> that's why they can afford DHT
> >>> >>> [12:22] <stenyak> dht could be used for simulating a forum-like
> >>> >>>discussion
> >>> >>> in wave. but we can't force that restriction from the server
> >>> >>> [12:22] <stenyak> (i say forum-like, because people don't expect
> >>> >>>reaction
> >>> >>> within seconds there)
> >>> >>> [12:23] <alown> How did iplayer do its live p2p broadcastinºg?
> >>> >>> [12:23] * stenyak googles what iplayer is
> >>> >>> [12:23] <alown> Sorry, BBC iPlayer is their TV-over-the-internet
> >>> >>>system.
> >>> >>> [12:24] <alown> Originally it used a p2p system, but got lots of
> >>> >>>negative
> >>> >>> press (because of assosciation with BT since it used p2p), so it
> >>>now
> >>> >>>uses a
> >>> >>> centralized system instead. (And their bandwidth costs are much
> >>> >>>higher).
> >>> >>> [...]
> >>> >>> [12:25] <stenyak> i seem to recall other [p2p] tv clients
> >>> >>> [12:25] <stenyak>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=HOW-TO:Play_free_P2P_(peer-to-peer)
> >>> >>>_online_streaming_TV
> >>> >>> [...]
> >>> >>> [12:26] <alown> Found a paper titled "RT-P2P: A Scalable Real-Time
> >>> >>> Peer-to-Peer System with Probabilistic Timing Assurances" (google
> >>>for
> >>> >>>it)
> >>> >>> [12:28] <alown> Lookt at the paper I mentioned. It relies on 'super
> >>> >>>nodes'
> >>> >>> to enable it to keep low latencies...
> >>> >>> [...]
> >>> >>> [12:27] <stenyak> but i'd be wary of using this (p2p tv) as an
> >>> >>>inspiration.
> >>> >>> i know there's delay of 10-30 seconds from my TV Formula1 image to
> >>>the
> >>> >>> telemetry that comes through HTTP from formula1.com website. this
> >>>is
> >>> >>> regular TV, and they don't care about 30 seconds of lag
> >>> >>> [12:27] <stenyak> the only real problem of p2p tv is avoiding much
> >>> >>>jitter
> >>> >>> [12:27] <stenyak> as long as the stream arrives and is viewable, a
> >>> >>>delay of
> >>> >>> a minute doesn't matter that much
> >>> >>> [12:28] <alown> True.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *8) Identifying participants (part 1):*
> >>> >>> [12:09] <alown> I am also no longer sure what an 'account' should
> >>>look
> >>> >>> like, since it has no reason to be stuck to a domain...
> >>> >>> [12:10] <stenyak> current wave discovery works by using the domain
> >>> >>>name of
> >>> >>> the email-address-like list of participants
> >>> >>> [12:10] <stenyak> but here we're talking about hashes, public keys
> >>>or
> >>> >>> whatever
> >>> >>> [12:10] <stenyak> which do not (necessarily) point to an particular
> >>> >>>IP:PORT
> >>> >>> or whatever
> >>> >>> [12:10] <alown> Exactly the problem...
> >>> >>> *...8) Identifying participants (part 2):*
> >>> >>> [12:33] <stenyak> would it make sense that, while some
> >>>participants are
> >>> >>> identified by a pubkey (or whatever), many of them could be
> >>>identified
> >>> >>>by a
> >>> >>> user@domain address, with which any peer can quickly locate
> >>> supernodes?
> >>> >>> [12:33] <stenyak> i mean some kind of dual "pubkey and optional
> >>>domain
> >>> >>> email-like addr" for the participants list
> >>> >>> [12:34] <stenyak> the optional part being essential in the broader
> >>> >>>internet
> >>> >>> [12:34] <alown> Isn't that exactly what using Mozilla Persona
> >>>would do
> >>> >>>(map
> >>> >>> user@domain to some public-key we can use)
> >>> >>> [12:34] <alown> Removing the need for us to have to roll
> >>>yet-another
> >>> >>> authentication system.
> >>> >>> [...]
> >>> >>> [12:38] <stenyak> the idea would be that, for a person to be a
> >>> >>>participant
> >>> >>> in a wave, you *require* his pubkey. optionally, you may have
> >>>acquired
> >>> >>>ths
> >>> >>> pubkey by asking "wave.google.com" about the user "joe", getting
> >>>his
> >>> >>> pubkey
> >>> >>> as a result.
> >>> >>> [12:39] <stenyak> and now that you have the pubkey and one of many
> >>> >>>possible
> >>> >>> email-like addresses (in this case j...@wave.google.com), then you
> >>>can
> >>> >>>use
> >>> >>> the email-like address for displaying in the UI
> >>> >>> [12:39] <stenyak> this means that, whoever wants to run pure p2p
> >>>peers,
> >>> >>> will have to give his pubkey
> >>> >>> [12:39] <stenyak> and whoever uses the more traditional style, can
> >>> >>>simply
> >>> >>> give his email-like addr
> >>> >>> [12:39] <stenyak> and the participants list will show a simple
> >>> >>>email-like
> >>> >>> address most of the time
> >>> >>> [12:40] <alown> Do we then allow anyone to 'log in' to any wave
> >>>server
> >>> >>> running at any domain, since it should no-longer make any
> >>>difference
> >>> >>>where
> >>> >>> they are in the network...
> >>> >>> [12:41] <stenyak> yes, that's needed for world-wide-public waves,
> >>> >>>which is
> >>> >>> equivalent to a read-only forum on the net
> >>> >>> [12:41] <stenyak> then there could be server-public waves, which is
> >>> >>> equivalent to requiring sign-in to view a forum (and
> >>>coincidentally the
> >>> >>> current implementation of public waves in WiaB, right?)
> >>> >>> [12:43] * alown has never tested what happens with public waves in
> >>>the
> >>> >>> current federation system
> >>> >>> *...8) Identifying participants (part 3):
> >>> >>> *
> >>> >>> [21:35] <josephg> - Who is a user? If a user is
> >>>sten...@example.com,
> >>> >>>then
> >>> >>> we can put a server at example.com and it can hold operations for
> >>>you
> >>> >>> [21:36] <josephg> ie, if I add you to a wave, my computer (or my
> >>>wave
> >>> >>> server or something) can send a message to example.com to say "Yo,
> >>> >>>here's
> >>> >>> some ops you should know about"
> >>> >>> [21:36] <josephg> that would be similar to a mailbox
> >>> >>> [21:37] <josephg> ... and it would work pretty well. Bear in mind
> >>>that
> >>> >>> there's no reason operations have to go through the wave server at
> >>> >>> example.com - if we're both on a LAN together, we could discover
> >>>one
> >>> >>> another through DNS service discovery and send ops directly
> >>> >>> [21:37] <josephg> .. without going through our respective wave
> >>>servers
> >>> >>> [21:38] <josephg> However - if our identities aren't tied to a
> >>>domain
> >>> >>>(eg
> >>> >>> bitcoin), then we'll need to use a dht or something.
> >>> >>> [21:42] <stenyak> the conclussion i've arrived at is that "users"
> >>> >>> ultimately are a publickey (for which they have the privatekey).
> >>>this
> >>> >>>is
> >>> >>> inconvenient for people to "add you to a wave", so a possibility
> >>>would
> >>> >>>be
> >>> >>> to have a friendlyname=>pubkey server converter. this way people
> >>>can
> >>> >>>add "
> >>> >>> sten...@example.com", by first finding out what the pubkey for
> >>> >>> sten...@example.com really is
> >>> >>> [21:43] <stenyak> the friendlyname would be optional, and in LAN
> >>> >>> environments you could directly use the pubkey (instead of the
> >>>friendly
> >>> >>> name)
> >>> >>> [21:43] <josephg> I think people will be more than happy to use a
> >>> >>>frienly
> >>> >>> name in a lan environment too
> >>> >>> [21:43] <stenyak> discovery in a local network could be done with
> >>> >>>bonjour
> >>> >>> or something too (not just dns)
> >>> >>> [21:44] <josephg> I <3 dns-sd
> >>> >>> [21:44] <stenyak> [...] maybe they already have a contact list
> >>>(read,
> >>> >>>list
> >>> >>> of friendlyname<>pubkey equivalences) they can use in the UI (even
> >>>if
> >>> >>>the
> >>> >>> underlying system will use pubkeys anyway)
> >>> >>> [21:44] <stenyak> and by contact list, i really mean a cache of
> >>>some
> >>> >>>sort
> >>> >>> [21:45] <stenyak> (not some specific, complex roster system)
> >>> >>> [21:45] <josephg> and you can do friendlyname -> pubkey really
> >>>easily
> >>> >>>by
> >>> >>> just storing the pubkey on the user's domain
> >>> >>> [21:45] <josephg> so, have the example.com webserver host
> >>> >>> https://example.com/.wellknown/stenyak
> >>> >>> [21:46] <josephg> = your public key.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *9) P2P anonymity (peers that want to anonymously lurk in a wave)
> >>>(part
> >>> >>> 1):*
> >>> >>> [12:48] <stenyak> by the way, what about non-participants that
> >>>simply
> >>> >>>want
> >>> >>> to lurk a wave?
> >>> >>> [12:49] <stenyak> e.g. i'm given a wave uri
> >>> >>> (wave://look_at_these_kittens_wave), and want to view it
> >>> >>> [12:49] <alown> Whilst a wave is public, as soon as they 'read'
> >>>the
> >>> >>>wave,
> >>> >>> they would have a metadata wavelet created, so would become a
> >>> >>>participant
> >>> >>> (if read-only).
> >>> >>> [12:50] <stenyak> and from then on, whenever the wave changes,
> >>>someone
> >>> >>>will
> >>> >>> try to make the change reach the peers with my privkey
> >>> >>> [12:50] <stenyak> supposedly..
> >>> >>> *...9) P2P anonymity (peers that want to anonymously lurk in a
> >>>wave)
> >>> >>>(part
> >>> >>> 2):*
> >>> >>> [21:18] <josephg> stenyak: interesting point about people who want
> >>>to
> >>> >>>not
> >>> >>> participate but follow a wave anyway - its really bad if other
> >>>people
> >>> >>>can
> >>> >>> tell that they're there (assuming the wave is public).
> >>> >>> [21:18] <josephg> I guess we just need to make sure that the
> >>>metadata
> >>> >>>wave
> >>> >>> is invisible, and then its ok..
> >>> >>> [21:21] <stenyak> invisible.. to what peer/s? surely those that are
> >>> >>> transmitting deltas to the lurkers will need to know they exist?
> >>> >>> [21:21] <stenyak> (maybe some of the algorithms behind freenet can
> >>>help
> >>> >>> with this)
> >>> >>> [21:21] <stenyak> (or even TOR)
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *10) Encryption of waves:*
> >>> >>> [21:47] <josephg> for waves themselves, I'm imagining giving each
> >>>wave
> >>> >>>an
> >>> >>> AES key
> >>> >>> [21:47] <josephg> then storing an encrypted version of the key for
> >>>each
> >>> >>> participant on the wave
> >>> >>> [21:48] <josephg> .... anyway, that way anyone who has the AES key
> >>>can
> >>> >>>read
> >>> >>> all ops on the wave
> >>> >>> [21:48] <josephg> and can participate (because they can encrypt ops
> >>> >>>for the
> >>> >>> wave)
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> *11) Addition and removal of participants, and their ability to
> >>>read
> >>> >>>past
> >>> >>> and future wave versions/deltas:*
> >>> >>> [21:48] <stenyak> what about removing a user from a wave?
> >>> >>> [21:49] <josephg> worst case, we can just make a new key and re-add
> >>> >>> everyone using the new key
> >>> >>> [21:49] <josephg> and keep around the old key too
> >>> >>> [21:49] <josephg> so people can still read the old ops as well
> >>> >>> [21:49] <stenyak> the user can access their browser cache for all
> >>>we
> >>> >>>care..
> >>> >>> if you ever read it, there will be ways to do it. "download now
> >>> >>>wave-spy to
> >>> >>> read waves you were removed from!"
> >>> >>> [21:49] <stenyak> so providing an official way sounds better
> >>> >>> [21:50] <stenyak> the AES key could change at any point in time,
> >>>e.g.
> >>> >>> whenever a new users is added (to prevent them accessing the
> >>>history),
> >>> >>>or
> >>> >>> deleting them (to prevent them from reading future history)
> >>> >>> [22:32] <josephg> um - in wave, we let new users see the whole
> >>>history
> >>> >>> [22:40] <stenyak> but that use case could be desirable, right? and
> >>>if
> >>> >>>we
> >>> >>> support modification/versioning of the AES key, we might as well
> >>>allow
> >>> >>>that
> >>> >>> too? the equivalent in email world would be to forward an email,
> >>> >>>removing
> >>> >>> the existing quotes
> >>> >>> [23:17] <josephg> Yep definitely.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> --
> >>> >>> Saludos,
> >>> >>> Bruno González
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>> Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com
> >>> >>> http://www.stenyak.com
> >>> >>>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>
