User:Mstone/Higher protocols: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Discovery == |
== Discovery == |
||
Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
: e.g. Facebook integration. |
: e.g. Facebook integration. |
||
We think this is the right order because we think it serves our most important [[network scenarios]] the best. |
We think this is the right order because we think it serves our most important [[Network2/Paper#Scenarios|network scenarios]] the best. |
||
== Presence == |
== Presence == |
Latest revision as of 21:48, 13 February 2011
Discovery
As described by our network principles and by other presentations, our peers need a way to know what names are interesting. We propose the following prioritized list of techniques:
- typing in a name
- This mechanism is the most robust and most amenable to "use by determined humans".
- proactive local discovery
- See http://cerebro.mit.edu
- url-handling
- See Network principles.
- global techniques
- e.g. Facebook integration.
We think this is the right order because we think it serves our most important network scenarios the best.
Presence
Scott's thought was that peers should run a stripped down jabber server like, say, Twisted Words.
Health
Networks break regularly and humans need to fix them. In order to do this, humans need measurement tools, a mental model, and some hints about what to look at. Consequently, a middle-level health system might start with the low-level diagnostics and self-test algorithm mentioned above and extend those diagnostics and that algorithm with additional tests based on measuring:
- is there any divergence between what the human has told me is true and what I actually perceive?