Re: [alto] ALTO deployment considerations and map calculation draft

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Wed, 28 October 2015 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F8B41B5D18 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vxiPmoeiw2C1 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23D181B5D1B for <alto@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.5.2.66]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id B7F6F4CCD5F2B; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:11:07 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.61]) by us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t9SIB9T1024495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:11:09 GMT
Received: from [135.185.238.169] (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.169]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id t9SIB7DM021380; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:11:07 -0500 (CDT)
To: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@cs.yale.edu>, "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <5630ECD6.9030101@bell-labs.com> <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D485323D9@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CANUuoLrYg-B0J5wxCUKsqGJRQ3k02bB17vOkh70b39X4v+sTYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Message-ID: <56310FBB.8080301@bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:11:07 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANUuoLrYg-B0J5wxCUKsqGJRQ3k02bB17vOkh70b39X4v+sTYA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/5UnSmO1P5l2GCtP2ICDoNdyGM3I>
Cc: IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [alto] ALTO deployment considerations and map calculation draft
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:11:15 -0000

Richard Yang wrote:

> Vijay, Michael,
[...]
> I liked draft-seidel-alto-map-calculation, and support that we report
> the results in an RFC.

Richard, whether and in which track draft-siedel-...-calculation moves
ahead will get hashed out on the list, I am sure.  Probably sooner
rather than later.

> I share the same interest: completing the deployment doc soon. One
> procedural question. If we add content from
> draft-seidel-alto-map-calculation to the deployment doc, do we need
> to go through a WGLC again?

If we end up taking some text from draft-siedel-...-calculation, then
yes, we'd socialize the change with the WG.  However, it does not have
to be a WGLC again, just a revision that presents the newly added text
to the WG.

In the past, I have authored drafts and been part of WGs where new text
is added after the WGLC.  The change gets socialized, and if the feeling
in the WG is that the change is substantial, then a second WGLC may get
issued.  However, I don't think that will be the case here.  I suspect
we can identify if there is any information we can carry into
draft-...-deployment-considerations, and if so we can revise the draft
to socialize the change and move it ahead.

The bigger issue is finding the time for the authors (or list members)
to scan draf-siedel-...-calculation and see if there is any text that
is worth including in draft-...-deployment-considerations.  The sooner
this happens, the better.

Hans, Michael: If you could devote a bit of time to determining this,
it'll be great.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq