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

"Lisa Dusseault" <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com> Wed, 15 October 2008 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <p2pi-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: p2pi-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-p2pi-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F219828C27F; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76DA53A67A8 for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 jcDnSEHVPvO0 for <p2pi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.171]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBF43A6893 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so2952916wfd.31 for <p2pi@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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; d=gmail.com; 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 10.140.249.20 with SMTP id w20mr980368rvh.21.1224095997421; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.173.21 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ca722a9e0810151139q29705f8bm9e02ab5eb0dd27ec@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:39:57 -0700
From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <48F60A4F.3010604@alcatel-lucent.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20081006203532.B1D673A68AF@core3.amsl.com> <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9276373BA@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com> <48EFA1B7.7010508@alcatel-lucent.com> <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B92763750C@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com> <48F36E15.2000408@alcatel-lucent.com> <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B927637717@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com> <48F60A4F.3010604@alcatel-lucent.com>
Cc: "p2pi@ietf.org" <p2pi@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <p2pi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/p2pi>
List-Post: <mailto:p2pi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0573615653=="
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>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).

Lisa
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi