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

"Lisa Dusseault" <> Wed, 15 October 2008 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F219828C27F; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76DA53A67A8 for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jcDnSEHVPvO0 for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBF43A6893 for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 27so2952916wfd.31 for <>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=lwL/uGDAHrJ9xAdO/MH9o42NiI+zJSLFb7ey2kPt+1s=; b=U7qa6vtBrsRb4uExm0zVDz40hMRBBmTMKA9rFoXHpI5NUsBLcuexEyYPBnWFqrJTd9 0Ey6ACiPoN0Zog69EXUcy3NQEsv3AA77TilwRUROaBaAPj5yrXE015Yo+A21oapX1JVy /WmIwRNMROIJR27agpnc8O20t+Zim9fhqUM4U=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=xC6cypa4YzwiVYBNhLPetFP83KwmnM7LOQWlUJNgKlxXJ0yOqufxCcF8xch5Im77An x0125/QoBA0wvHmOMhwssoHfKKSk0Q6+lxHZsBZUZr58YoGv0DpEqwzks0zFeQ+M8dNA fP/CjuPapRzGAv5C0cJCbeq9cJzVhD/OtMUPs=
Received: by with SMTP id w20mr980368rvh.21.1224095997421; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:57 -0700
From: "Lisa Dusseault" <>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Cc: "" <>,
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0573615653=="

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani <>wrote;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).

p2pi mailing list