http://blogs.msdn.com/noahh/archive/tags/Collaboration/default.aspxTags: Collaborationen-USCommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)http://blogs.msdn.com/noahh/archive/2004/08/16/215342.aspxMon, 16 Aug 2004 21:09:00 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:215342noahh1http://blogs.msdn.com/noahh/comments/215342.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/noahh/commentrss.aspx?PostID=215342<p>I have been wrestling with a question that I thought I would bring out to the rest of the world.&nbsp; In PNRP today, we have three scopes in which you can register or resolve a name; the global scope which includes all machines in the world, the site scope which mirrors the IPv6 concept of local site (usually within a company) and the link-local scope which represents all machines connected on a link.&nbsp; We have heard from a lot of developers that the link scope is very hard to use as every machine has a different link-cloud name (since the clouds are named after the interface) and because it is confusing regarding which one to use if there are multiple interfaces.&nbsp; Furthermore, IPv6 has deprecated their concept of site-scope, so it is unclear what should be done with that scope.&nbsp; Thus my question for the PNRP users out there is what scopes would be useful to you?</p> <p>My current favorite idea is that site goes away (it never seemed to be used much anyways), individual link clouds remain for power users, but that we add a new keyword that can be used in place of a cloud name called something like 'ALL-LINK.'&nbsp; It would mean to perform the register or resolve in all of the link clouds.&nbsp; This would probably simplify life for 95% of use cases.</p> <p>Does that sound helpful?</p><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=215342" width="1" height="1">P2PCollaborationhttp://blogs.msdn.com/noahh/archive/2004/07/31/203274.aspxSun, 01 Aug 2004 05:14:00 GMT91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:203274noahh0http://blogs.msdn.com/noahh/comments/203274.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/noahh/commentrss.aspx?PostID=203274<P>When I first started this blog, I explained how my team, the <a title="" href="http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p2p/" >Peer Networking</a> team, was responsible for the Windows XP Peer-to-Peer SDK.&nbsp; Well, a few months ago we changed our team name to Collaboration Technologies Team.&nbsp; That does not mean that anything has happened to P2P, but rather that we have a clearer focus.&nbsp; All of the technologies that you know and love such as PNRP, Grouping and Graphing are all still alive and kicking, and are still owned by our team.&nbsp; What has happened is that we took a deep look at the industry, a look at our technologies and a look at what end users wanted and saw that the common thread was collaboration.&nbsp; </P> <P>Right now, collaboration is very difficult for developers to implement as connectivity between client machines is spotty, name resolution is non-existent, and multi-party messaging is difficult to pull off efficiently.&nbsp; This leads to a lot of software that relies on servers in the sky for rendevzous, traffic relaying and message multiplexing.&nbsp; Yet we can deliver the technologies needed to make the experience work without those servers.&nbsp; IPv6 (along with coexistence technologies like Teredo and 6to4) give us the addressability we need, PNRP gives us the name resolution needed, and grouping / graphing give us the needed multicast capabilities.&nbsp; We also have a lot more cool stuff coming that will make it easy for the average developer to enable collaboration in their applications.&nbsp; </P> <P>I am pretty excited about our focus on collaboration as it means that we can better ensure that our technologies will effectively solve problems that developers face today.&nbsp;</P><img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=203274" width="1" height="1">P2PCollaboration