Re: [alto] Discussion on the future of ALTO WG

["Sabine Randriamasy (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med, Qin and ALTO WG

Thanks a lot for initiating this discussion and your options proposal.
https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/wg-materials/blob/main/FutureALTO/alto-direction-of-work.md

I definitely prefer Proposal #3: Support ALTO extensions for the new industry needs

Thanks a lot to Jordi's insights on this option, that I share. ALTO WG may also want to work on abstraction of compute metrics and exposure, in relation to other IETF WG that would look at these matters. As a previous example, draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-28 (in RFC Ed queue) was done in coordination with the IPPM WG.

Kind regards,
Sabine

From: alto <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:12 AM
To: Jordi Ros Giralt <[e-mail]>; Qin Wu <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [alto] Discussion on the future of ALTO WG

Hi Jordi, all,

Only some logistic comments, not reacting to any expressed views so far:


  *   We created a page at https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/wg-materials/blob/main/FutureALTO/alto-direction-of-work.md to track the various proposals (yours is posted there), challenge them, enrich them, add rebuttals, etc.
  *   For your logistic comment, we organized on purpose an interim meeting to offload the IETF#116 agenda and let other I-Ds be presented and discussed. We scheduled 4 other interims till end of May. We really need some focus at this stage.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Med

De : Jordi Ros Giralt <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Envoyé : jeudi 23 mars 2023 00:13
À : Qin Wu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: [alto] Discussion on the future of ALTO WG

Hi Med, Qin,



Here is my feedback to your analysis below.



I would like to start with a note. The ALTO team has brought (and continues to bring) a lot of positive energy (development of RFCs, deployments of the standard at major carriers and new deployments that are in the making, running code via the development of the open source project OpenALTO, consistent participation on IETF hackathons usually with multiple parallel projects/demos, chairing important forums such as SIGCOMM NAI to incorporate feedback into the WG from the broad spectrum of industry and academic players, etc.), but it is also true that much of the (even larger) potential energy of the group has been locked for quite some time as the group has not been allowed to discuss the new critical topics that we want to bring from our industry needs. We've all being waiting for this moment, to be able to discuss the new topics and unlock yet another level of positive energy into the IETF; and so, it is at the minimum surprising that the only two options being proposed are either (1) recharter with just a focus of working on protocol maintenance or (2) close the WG and move our current work to other WGs or RGs.



I have two broad comments, one on the proposed options and another one on the logistics to make a proper decision.

On the proposed options:

------------------------------------

I would like to suggest adding a 3rd proposal, which I believe is what much of us have been working for, for quite some time:



# Proposal #3: Support ALTO extension for the new industry needs.



## Rationale:

  *   Many I-Ds have been proposed describing the importance of leveraging ALTO key core architecture to enable the new industry needs, where close cooperation between the application and the network is critical.
  *   Allowing these extensions would enable the group to grow and unlock its true potential, also attracting other industry players that have been writing ALTO I-Ds, but not fully joined us yet because their proposals were tagged as being out of the scope for the current charter.
  *   Lots of positive energy and determination in the WG, as we understand the potential positive impact (better application performance).
  *   The proposed work can't be done in other groups, and even if we tried to do so, it would be improper from an architecture/engineering standpoint. For instance, trying to move the exposure of compute information for determining edge services to CATS is not viable since "Exposure of network and compute conditions to applications is not in the scope of CATS" [1]. ALTO is inherently/by definition very well positioned here, since it's designed to expose such kind of information to the application, that is key to the industry problems we are working to resolve.
  *   There is a natural, coherent story for ALTO, which started from P2P networks, then CDNs, and now it's moving into edge computing, where the application requires more than ever to cooperate closely to meet stringent throughput and delay requirements.
  *   There is a belief that the ALTO WG has been running for a very long time, but this in general is not a good technical reason to base a rechartering decision on. From the abovementioned trend standpoint, keeping ALTO open to provide the IETF a platform for close application-network integration appears more important than ever before.

## Proposed direction of work:
·Recharter the WG with a focus on ALTO to cover both maintenance and the new industry needs (where such needs are currently being discussed in the ALTO WG internal meetings and mailing list, see also my next comment on logistics).

[1] CATS charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cats/


On the logistics to make a proper decision:

---------------------------------------------------------
This is of course a very important decision, so it's also important that we as a group provide the right discussion environment to make a proper decision. For instance, various members of the WG have been working on various I-Ds to enable a discussion of the proposed new charter items. Yet during IETF 116, the group is only given 20 minutes to discuss 5 different I-Ds that are proposed topics for the recharter. This is not sufficient time to enable a proper discussion on these important topics. Granted, the ALTO WG meets every week, and we can have further conversations offline, but the IETF Meetings are a great place to have these discussions in person and to open them up to people outside the group to collect feedback. I would encourage providing proper time while we are in Japan to discuss these topics and continue to discuss them thereafter via interim meetings. (During 116, getting 30 minutes would be better than 20, getting 40 minutes would be even better.)



Thanks,

Jordi




_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.