Re: [apps-discuss] APPs team review of draft-ietf-alto-reqs-11

Enrico Marocco <> Thu, 06 October 2011 06:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88CF621F8B07; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 23:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.586
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ajY6HYccNtEb; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 23:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F0F21F8B05; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 23:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from GRFHUB701BA020.griffon.local ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 09:01:01 +0200
Received: from MacLab.local ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 09:01:01 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 09:00:34 +0200
From: Enrico Marocco <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Hardie <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms080000010201080109010606"
Cc: Sebastian Kiesel <>, "" <>, IESG <>, Apps Discuss <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPs team review of draft-ietf-alto-reqs-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 06:57:57 -0000

Hi Ted,

I want just to let you know that the document authors have not forgotten
about this and are currently working on addressing the issues you
pointed out. However, I think I have to provide some context regarding
the point you raise below.

On 9/21/11 10:13 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Thank you for your responses.  I believe that working with your AD on
> the next steps is appropriate.  As I
> said above, my personal view is that time spent on requirements
> documents once the protocol specification is done or well on its way may
> not be the best use of a WG's time.  How much effort you should spend on
> these clarifications is a matter for the WG and ADs to work through. 

When this draft was adopted in the early days of the working group, in
agreement with the AD and the proponents of the various solutions it was
decided to keep it alive till the solution specs reach a decent maturity
level. The decision was taken in SF, as you can see in the meeting notes
(that I did put together quite poorly, my bad, reflecting only part of
the long discussion we had):

Since then, the document has been basically used to keep track of the
discussion on most of the fundamental issues with the protocol, till
when the WG decided that the protocol was mature enough and the
requirements ready for being finalized. At that point, most of the
descriptive text was removed or rephrased in REQs speak, in order to
deliver what the charter required us to.

All in all, the document has been extremely useful, basically replacing
the issue tracker tool the WG -- despite trying quite hard -- has never
found a way to use effectively. The document has proved to be
extremely useful in archival sense of recording and tracking the
evolution of the ALTO protocol as it progressed in the WG and as new
capabilities, actions and use cases were raised. As such, I think
that this is an important piece of documentation in the ALTO evolution,
a lot of effort has been put in it and there is merit in refining and
publishing it.