Re: [p2pi] ALTO BoF - generalize the problem

["Saverio Niccolini" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Damien,

I see your point but in my opinion it does not make sense to go
broader that what ALTO is already right now.

I see ALTO problem statement and requirements a good trade-off of
trying to be general while trying to address a well scoped problem
area. --> that is the real challenge and I think ALTO people is
doing a great job on this.

As also Bruce pointed out:
- a BOF which has too broad a scope is unlikely to lead  
successfully to a working group. (IETF non-written rule)

I would encourage you to help the ALTO work in getting chartered
instead of claiming for "the general framework" that is most probably
not going to get consensus.

Saverio

============================================================
Dr. Saverio Niccolini
Manager, Real-Time Communications Group
NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division	
Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg
Tel.     [phone]
Fax:     [phone]
e-mail:  [e-mail] <-- !!! NEW ADDRESS !!!
============================================================
NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria
Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014
 
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Damien Saucez
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:31 PM
> To: Saverio Niccolini
> Cc: Olivier Bonaventure; [e-mail]; PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri
> Subject: Re: [p2pi] ALTO BoF - generalize the problem
> 
> Saverio,
> 
> Saverio Niccolini wrote:
> 
> >Ok,
> >
> >I now get your point:
> >you do not like P2P as being the application ALTO is focusing on.
> >
> >  
> >
> We are not against P2Ps and we know that P2P is a major 
> application for the ALTO problem. However, we think that it 
> is really important to focus ALTO on all the applications and 
> not on to say "ok, ALTO works also with other applications than P2P".
> 
> Of course, when I read the drafts and the mails, I can see 
> that you what to be independent, but it seems to be a 
> secondary requirement and for me the genericity is the key of ALTO.
> 
> >Actually:
> >-- P2P is written in the problem statement and in every 
> motivation of 
> >ALTO because P2P are the type of applications motivating Application 
> >Layer Traffic Optmization. --> this is a real-world problem IETf is 
> >here to address
> >
> >  
> >
> P2P is not the only real-world problem. We are from the 
> routing world and we observe that you have the same problems 
> as us and surprisingly the same solutions (the oracle and 
> IDIPS have been designed independently and are more or less 
> the same, the oracle was for P2P and IDIPS comes from NAROS 
> discussed for the IPv6 multihoming problem), so what the 
> draft says is to work together to avoid making systems doing 
> the same things independently (waste or ressources).
> 
> >In your draft you are not providing evidence why the general 
> framework 
> >would be needed by other type of applications, thus I do not see why 
> >the group should be considering this option.
> >
> >As such I see: P2P are motivating this work and there is not 
> evidence 
> >that other type of applications would need what you call 
> "the general framework"
> >
> >  
> >
> >Moreover:
> >-- if you look at the requirements draft 
> >(http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kiesel-alto-reqs-00.txt)
> >there is an explicit sentence where it is written:
> >"The goal of ALTO is to provide information which can help peer-to- 
> >peer (P2P) applications to make better decisions with 
> respect to peer 
> >selection.  However, ALTO may be useful for non-P2P applications as 
> >well."
> >
> >In the requirement draft P2P applications are only used as 
> examples but 
> >the requirements are general for every type of application.
> >
> >This express why I said: "ALTO is not application specific".
> >
> >  
> >
> >As last thing:
> >I think we do not agree on terminology:
> >you can not say ALTO is application specific if it considers 
> a class of 
> >applications (P2P ones) and it also meant to be useful for 
> non-P2P ones.
> >
> >P2P is indeed NOT application-specific, any type of 
> application can use 
> >the P2P paradigm.
> >
> >  
> >
> Sure, we don't say alto is related to application XYZ, but is 
> limited to the application layer (AL stands for Application 
> Layer) and people working on the problem mainly come from the 
> P2P world. Once again, the idea of the discussion is to 
> insist on the fact that ALTO can be very generic without 
> sacrifying anything. IDIPS works with LISP, SHIM6, dual stack 
> machines, P2P, FTP or CDNs so our solutions (P4P, oracle) 
> should probably also work with many different paradigms and 
> what we would like is to extend ALTO to that point.
> 
> >Maybe you want to re-phrase your statement?
> >
> >  
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Saverio
> >  
> >
> 
> Thanks for your discussion Saverio.
> 
> Damien Saucez
> 
> > 
> >============================================================
> >Dr. Saverio Niccolini
> >Manager, Real-Time Communications Group
> >NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division	
> >Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg
> >Tel.     [phone]
> >Fax:     [phone]
> >e-mail:  [e-mail] <-- !!! NEW ADDRESS !!!
> >============================================================
> >NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, 
> >London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> p2pi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
> 
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi