Re: [alto] New draft on use cases for ALTO & CDNs

stefano previdi <sprevidi@cisco.com> Thu, 28 April 2011 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <sprevidi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18D6E0723 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 03:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aEd+T6wgl+Xa for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 03:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB83E0721 for <alto@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 03:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3S9wkav025943; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:58:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from dhcp-rom2-144-254-191-61.cisco.com (dhcp-rom2-144-254-191-61.cisco.com [144.254.191.61]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3S9wj95000828; Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:58:45 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <63C0C7B3-BB9F-4D93-A02D-64ECB0AED615@cisco.com>
From: stefano previdi <sprevidi@cisco.com>
To: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <63A9CDFD-B60E-43B3-8C7F-86F405B378E8@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:58:45 +0200
References: <63A9CDFD-B60E-43B3-8C7F-86F405B378E8@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3)
Cc: Grant Watson <grant.watson@bt.com>, Nabil N Bitar <nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com>, alto@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [alto] New draft on use cases for ALTO & CDNs
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:10:04 -0000

Ben,

On Apr 27, 2011, at 5:45 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> During the ALTO meeting at IETF80 I made some comments at the  
> microphone highlighting my concerns with the scope of draft-penno- 
> alto-cdn-03 being far too wide and that we should first focus on  
> documenting the use cases and requirements.
>
> To that end I've been working with a couple of folks to co-author a  
> draft focussed on documenting the use cases for ALTO & CDNs, the  
> thinking being that a fresh draft with a tighter focus than draft- 
> penno-alto-cdn-03 makes highlighting and discussing the use cases  
> without slipping into possible solution mechanisms much simpler and  
> cleaner.


makes sense.


> We have just published a -00 version which is available here:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jenkins-alto-cdn-use-cases-00
>
> So far we have only included details on two use cases and included  
> placeholders for another two because we wanted to socialise the work  
> early to see if others were interested in contributing text for the  
> use cases they have as well as to solicit early feedback on the  
> structure and focus of the draft.


splitting the current alto-cdn document makes sense to me and we
need to define:
a. use cases
b. requirements
c. proposed solutions

your draft addresses the use cases and you may want to merge the
use cases sections we currently have in the alto-cdn draft so to
focus that one only on the proposed solution(s).

The question is about requirements: do we want to include them
in one of the two drafts or into a separate document ?

s.


> Comments/Suggestions/etc on the draft are welcomed.
>
> Ben
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto