Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)

["Lisa Dusseault" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani <[e-mail]>wrote:

> Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
>
> Peer selection is important to ISPs from a network utilization perspective
>> and to peers themselves from a performance perspective. That automatically
>> makes peer selection a function of multiple aspects - a) information that
>> some service providers may decide to share with the peers, b) information
>> that peers decide to make available about themselves to other peers for this
>> purpose, and, c) any measurements peers may do on their own.  The current
>> charter definition (and from what I can tell based on your response below)
>> only seems to allow for a).  I would agree that c) is out of scope of
>>  ALTO and something that peers can additionally do.  I strongly believe
>> that b) should be part of the ALTO work.
>>
>
> I believe that incorporating (b) expands the charter quite a bit,
> whereas the consensus since the first BoF was for narrowing
> it down.  I will also note that the feedback expressed on the
> list does not appear to view ALTO as a peer description protocol.
>
> To be sure, I am not unsympathetic to (b), it seems like a great
> problem to solve, it's just that ALTO may not be the best place
> to solve this problem.
>
> In the end, maybe the ADs can decide a way forward.
>

There's plenty of work to do in a).  My recommendation based on estimation
of appropriate scope as well as an estimation of the consensus here, would
be to do that first -- to have a charter that is scoped to (a).  Then the
possibilities for (b) include working in the P2P research group, individual
submissions, and /or a new BoF/WG.  Another option would be a future charter
update for ALTO if it's successful and there's consensus for it to be the
basis for (b).

Lisa

_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi