[alto] Synchronizing on the problem statement

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 01 December 2008 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <alto-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: alto-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-alto-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7773A6BA5; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:50:33 -0800 (PST)
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 85B9F3A6BA5 for <alto@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:50:32 -0800 (PST)
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 CTFtUZi7AdT5 for <alto@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:50:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635F23A6A01 for <alto@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:50:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (h135-3-40-61.lucent.com [135.3.40.61]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id mB1KoQf5016230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <alto@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:50:26 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [135.185.236.17] (il0015vkg1.ih.lucent.com [135.185.236.17]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id mB1KoP5G026883 for <alto@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:50:26 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <49344E13.2070602@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:50:27 -0600
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Bell Labs Security Technology Research Group
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: alto@ietf.org
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
Subject: [alto] Synchronizing on the problem statement
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: alto-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: alto-bounces@ietf.org

Folks: One of the action items in the Minneapolis meeting was
to ensure that all working group participants have a common
understanding of the problem we have been chartered to solve.

Clearly, those following the proceedings from the May 2008
IETF/MIT workshop may have an advantage over others in this
respect.  To remedy that situation, I will like to direct the
attention of the participants to the following pair of documents,
possibly read in this order, as the first draft provides context
on the discussion we had in the MIT workshop back in May 2008:

1) The P2Pi workshop report (please see
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report-00)

2) The problem statement draft (please see
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marocco-alto-problem-statement-03)

To move forward in a concrete manner, I would like to entreat
those who will be reading the above two documents for the first
time: could you kindly ensure that the problem is sufficiently
identified and documented in the problem-statement draft such
that a neophyte reader is able to quickly understand and appreciate
it.

Among those that read the problem-statement draft or have been
following this work since the workshop, the bulk of the discussion
in the Minneapolis IETF was on the fate of the Solutions
Consideration section of the draft.  To wit, there were two ways
to handle this section:

   1) Move it to the requirements document.
   2) Keep it in the problem-statement document, but rename it as
      a problem-statement-applicability document.

It would be great if explicit comments on the problem statement
were provided on this list to help the editor of the problem
statement revise the draft.

If you'd like to refresh your recollection of the problem-statement
discussion, please see the various media files related to this
discussion at the ALTO wiki page
(http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/alto/trac/wiki).

Thank you.

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto