[alto] Publication Requested: draft-ietf-alto-problem-statement-02
Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz> Tue, 14 July 2009 23:01 UTC
Return-Path: <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
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 85F5E3A69B7; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, 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 369clHFvaixr; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from neustar.com (ns6.neustar.com [156.154.16.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 082743A6958; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; d=neustar.biz; s=neustarbiz; c=simple/simple; q=dns; t=1247611279; x=1247697679; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=WGG3OHBIMq1WsrCdMSrKFecqy5CpptGVx7i1Guo2w+ns3DJcH9kNsKhqFZLRhf9D6ZOZKrQr/FSAMG wb2zsmRA==
Received: from ([10.31.13.108]) by stihiron1.va.neustar.com with ESMTP id 5202702.20374302; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:41:00 -0400
Message-ID: <4A5D097C.1020401@neustar.biz>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:41:00 -0700
From: Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: alto@ietf.org
Subject: [alto] Publication Requested: draft-ietf-alto-problem-statement-02
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: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:01:46 -0000
The ALTO WG requests that the IESG consider publication of draft-ietf-alto-problem-statement-02. The document shepherd writeup is given below. Jon Peterson NeuStar, Inc. --- Document: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement draft-ietf-alto-problem-statement-02 (Informational) (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Jon Peterson is the document shepherd. I have personally reviewed this version of the document, and it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has had reviews by key WG members as well as TSV experts. Additionally, being the document that accompanied the chartering of the ALTO WG, it has received extended review by the whole IETF community during the WG creation process. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? None. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. None. No IPR disclosures. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Strong consensus for publishing. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) None. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Checked with ID nits 2.11.11: no issues nor nits found. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The document has only Informational references. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This document raises no actions for the IANA. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? There is no formal language in the document. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Peer-to-peer applications, such as file sharing, real-time communication, and live and on-demand media streaming use a significant amount of Internet resources. Such applications often transfer large amounts of data in peer-to-peer connections. However, they usually have little knowledge of the underlying network topology. As a result, they may choose their peers randomly with respect to the underlying network topology or they may choose their peers based on measurements and statistics that, in many situations, may lead to suboptimal choices. This document describes problems related to improving traffic generated by peer-to-peer applications. In particular, this document discusses issues which better-than- random peer selection based on network-layer information may raise. Working Group Summary This document is the problem statement that accompained the chartering process of the ALTO WG. Document Quality The document has received extended review by WG members and TSV experts.
- [alto] Publication Requested: draft-ietf-alto-pro… Jon Peterson