Re: [alto] Comments to "draft-ietf-alto-problem-statement-01"

Sebastian Kiesel <sebastian.kiesel@nw.neclab.eu> Wed, 03 June 2009 08:13 UTC

Return-Path: <Sebastian.Kiesel@nw.neclab.eu>
X-Original-To: alto@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C2E3A6B85 for <alto@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 01:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c0byaohcg1Rb for <alto@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 01:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC9F3A6ED2 for <alto@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 01:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF73A2C019196; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:13:48 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xqxRRzSRr9dC; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:13:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from VENUS.office (mx2.office [192.168.24.15]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3342C01C9AF; Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:13:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from foo.nw.neclab.eu ([10.1.6.240]) by VENUS.office with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:13:33 +0200
Received: by foo.nw.neclab.eu (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:13:32 +0200
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:13:32 +0200
From: Sebastian Kiesel <sebastian.kiesel@nw.neclab.eu>
To: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
Message-ID: <20090603081332.GC5235@foo.nw.neclab.eu>
References: <C6458CC8.2C43E%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <006601c9e2d2$29cefb90$5c0c7c0a@china.huawei.com> <9FE69972-6D13-4BC0-92D5-FBE17FBF18C4@standardstrack.com> <002301c9e393$8d988350$5c0c7c0a@china.huawei.com> <46B22506-C721-4448-8460-01F39A4E9D96@standardstrack.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46B22506-C721-4448-8460-01F39A4E9D96@standardstrack.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jun 2009 08:13:33.0993 (UTC) FILETIME=[302BB990:01C9E423]
Cc: alto <alto@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [alto] Comments to "draft-ietf-alto-problem-statement-01"
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 03 Jun 2009 08:13:53 -0000

On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 09:39:55PM -0400, Eric Burger wrote:
> Inline.
>
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>> Eric,
>>
>> Thank you very much for the explanation. Since I haven't participated 
>> in the ALTO discussion until recently, I am not aware that working 
>> group has already reached consensus on the document. Seeing the 
>> document is only at its Version 1, I thought the document is still at 
>> its early stage and open for input.
>>
> More important: thanks for the review!  The document went through quite a 
> few revisions at the draft-marocco stage.
>> I will take you suggestion on trying to draw a "better picture" and  
>> submit to the working group for review.  If no better picture can be  
>> agreed by the working group, I would like to take your offer on  
>> putting the following words into the document:
>>
>>
>> Figure 1 is only representative of the situation and, in particular,  
>> does NOT enumerate any particular or favored implementation strategy
>>
> Both (either a new figure or the disclaimer text) works for me.  Any one 
> else in the group have thoughts?

I think the current figure is adequate (but looking forward to see a
proposal for a better one).

regarding the caption/disclaimer: I think that although there are lots
of approaches for dealing with the ALTO problem, the figure was not
chosen randomly and coincidences with actual protocol proposals are not
completely unintentional. maybe something like:


Figure 1 illustrates the situation and components for one of several
possible high-level solution approaches for dealing with the ALTO
problem, namely the one which the ALTO WG has agreed to work on and
which is reflected in the ALTO WG charter.


(hoping that the "illustrates" gives enough hints that this figure
is not normative and does not mandate that there must be a single
ALTO server implemented as a physical box, etc.)



Thanks,
Sebastian



-- 
Sebastian Kiesel            mailto:sebastian.kiesel@nw.neclab.eu
Network Research Division   tel:+49-6221-4342-232   fax:+49-6221-4342-155
NEC Laboratories Europe     Kurfuerstenanlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany
--
NEC Europe Limited          Registered in England 2832014
Registered Office           NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL