Re: [alto] IMPORTANT: Suggestions for IETF 109 ALTO meeting

"Y. Richard Yang" <> Thu, 05 November 2020 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8243A1A0A for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 12:04:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.398
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TOuOmTQWlF60 for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 12:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F0D43A1A09 for <>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 12:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i6so4129652lfd.1 for <>; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 12:04:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Vr4XBNp4NcRHSsZ8bBN0yUfCOGYjZV+hsBIx3K4nF30=; b=FiaS6MPnCgw6a1o4ckeDwUzeMoX3y/qx55B/ZEb4p5u+FKladfuegOUeouc6VdTFiF bNPE3pFowXaqNe3oa61NRz4R8OzF+Xz+B6PE2KU1jI1u604z+2JlCkBNnqmedNUdW7rb X/TeKpVOfAgpefLKsqCovvipqukJPEji2vGbeg/qA38vAEjaVPxNTYlZe2YFTw8/pkI5 vD2I7XL4Q6dlYpfxMTW/FuBndXVGoDvBLLXhkfxyWBYq0CjCX5Z9/wvDkZWWERuIwkG2 YBY2XY/waywyzu32kvDxnB6699OjaN50ttvcAE+uAGxlfoDgJcg+svWS/2FeEiXJHMfn JhAw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LQuqZbC46yYpcBlI5th7TxDAkveANQ5gKteB1d/hWjDtIAGJA PZ5aE7SyWzfLKqp1VtEQX/7VfqZM9wHgTl4E3BQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8lc2szpk+a7YFTcIoTjlhkD58okWMKYL/fpN8WMQlBTsid5sImDSEt19nOSyK4EEs7PZWY9jdEOixGm0/qDQ=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:52b8:: with SMTP id r24mr1580869lfm.312.1604606672463; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 12:04:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Y. Richard Yang" <>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 15:04:21 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Vijay Gurbani <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b76b9305b3619a97"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [alto] IMPORTANT: Suggestions for IETF 109 ALTO meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 20:04:36 -0000

Hi Vijay, Jan,

Wonderful suggestion and organization!

As a regular attendee of the Wed (lately it changed to Tuesday as well)
meetings, I agree that the meetings members should focus on making progress
on the charter text and . We will send more updates soon.

Thanks again!


On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:36 AM Vijay Gurbani <>

> All: We plan to devote most of the time during our IETF 109 slot to
> charter discussions.
> Approaching the rechartering discussion in the manner we did during IETF
> 108 was not very conducive as most of the time was spent in 10 - 16 slide
> shows. The WG decided that we will hold a virtual interim to make progress
> towards 3-5 items that can be chartered under a new charter.  Clearly a
> virtual interim did not happen, but work towards winnowing down the charter
> items has been going on in the Wed meeting that a subset of the WG
> organizes weekly.
> The intent of the meeting slot in IETF 109 will be to make progress
> towards rechartering, which concretely implies that we have some charter
> text to discuss and that this includes 3-5 milestones that the rechartered
> WG will decide to pursue.
> Writing a charter text is an art form, so my advice to the Wed meeting
> group will be to devote the remaining meetings to come up with a candidate
> charter text.  It won't be perfect, but it will be a starting point to host
> discussions on re-chartering during IETF 109.  Please make sure that you
> have 3-5 deliverables in the charter along with reasonable milestones.
> Each piece of work that goes into a charter should have some thoughts
> behind it, or some candidate drafts.
> I don't expect IETF 109 to be the end of charter discussion, but rather it
> will be the first formal introduction of the WG to the charter and should
> kick off the process to arrive at a charter that has consensus of all
> relevant parties involved.
> Please let Jan and me know if there are any questions.
> Thanks,
> - vijay
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list