Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti@qualcomm.com> Fri, 10 October 2008 22:09 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 DD46728C108; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:09:22 -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 717AA3A6A2E; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 abQ2UjDKX4un; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472BB3A696A; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=ldondeti@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1223676607; x=1255212607; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-ironport-av; z=Message-ID:=20<48EFD2BC.8050706@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Fr i,=2010=20Oct=202008=2015:10:04=20-0700|From:=20Lakshmina th=20Dondeti=20<ldondeti@qualcomm.com>|User-Agent:=20Thun derbird=202.0.0.17=20(Windows/20080914)|MIME-Version:=201 .0|To:=20Lisa=20Dusseault=20<lisa.dusseault@gmail.com> |CC:=20"p2pi@ietf.org"=20<p2pi@ietf.org>,=20IESG=20IESG =20<iesg@ietf.org>,=20ietf@ietf.org|Subject:=20Re:=20[p2p i]=20WG=20Review:=20Application-Layer=20Traffic=20Optimiz ation=20(alto)|References:=20<20081006203532.B1D673A68AF@ core3.amsl.com>=09=20<BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9276 373BA@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com>=09=20<48EEB19C.4000303 @bbn.com>=20<48EEE549.1080208@qualcomm.com>=09=20<48EF477 E.4080708@telecomitalia.it>=20<48EF706C.9050508@qualcomm. com>=09=20<48EFA0BE.1040809@alcatel-lucent.com>=20<ca722a 9e0810101221yb84ac3ar8ff0f267718c88c9@mail.gmail.com> |In-Reply-To:=20<ca722a9e0810101221yb84ac3ar8ff0f267718c8 8c9@mail.gmail.com>|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20chars et=3DISO-8859-15=3B=20format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit|X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DM cAfee=3Bi=3D"5300,2777,5402"=3B=20a=3D"10632419"; bh=R8S+hirsnjECKpKpy4uLJOTBmBVlv1TMb1BaNLWr5UY=; b=CVb2mCqF2OTdTNJvUBHOZulWY86HUUBPFo5jk6gzv2frVzexs7VoX2rR CysAGfyuFtzWWdOPnRAggZH59g8bMjf8qFZSlkp9bkyNostdiNurEVMYv H4s9GCFYaqVnhBRoXrOZFuNCZggCDthfVYa/HcdFJnZwQR2+ztwUL3FGP k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5402"; a="10632419"
Received: from pdmz-ns-mip.qualcomm.com (HELO ithilien.qualcomm.com) ([199.106.114.10]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Oct 2008 15:10:06 -0700
Received: from msgtransport01.qualcomm.com (msgtransport01.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.148]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m9AMA5oW013284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:10:05 -0700
Received: from [129.46.74.185] (ldondeti.na.qualcomm.com [129.46.74.185]) by msgtransport01.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m9AMA5VI000726 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:10:05 -0700
Message-ID: <48EFD2BC.8050706@qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:10:04 -0700
From: Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
References: <20081006203532.B1D673A68AF@core3.amsl.com> <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9276373BA@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com> <48EEB19C.4000303@bbn.com> <48EEE549.1080208@qualcomm.com> <48EF477E.4080708@telecomitalia.it> <48EF706C.9050508@qualcomm.com> <48EFA0BE.1040809@alcatel-lucent.com> <ca722a9e0810101221yb84ac3ar8ff0f267718c88c9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ca722a9e0810101221yb84ac3ar8ff0f267718c88c9@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "p2pi@ietf.org" <p2pi@ietf.org>, IESG IESG <iesg@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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
On 10/10/2008 12:21 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote: > Lakshminath and Vidya, > > Vijay, Enrico and Stefano have said what I was going to say (e.g. below) > -- as sponsoring AD for this charter I've been following the WG > discussion, working with the rest of the IESG, and talking to people to > confirm that there's better consensus on the list, even if there was > confusion at the BOF. This IETF Last Call is also part of confirming > whether there's now consensus. Hi Lisa, My concern can be put in really simple terms. We have some really very confusing processes and we seem to add to the confusion and not make things simpler. I left Dublin thinking, out of the p2pi efforts, TANA will be a WG (there was strong consensus and agreement on the problem space and what needs to be done) and ALTO may have another BoF. As of today, there is a WG proposal on the table for ALTO and in a different area from where we started; TANA is on the BoF wiki. Next, my experiences in the past on BoFs that did not have consensus have been dramatically different from what is happening on ALTO. The IESG has really even refused to allow another BoF much less directly started creating a working group. So, it makes me wonder whether the rules have recently been changed or whether they are selectively applied. I am also confused by your use of the word consensus; you say that you've "talked to people" to confirm that there's "better consensus on the list," but also say that the charter review is also part of the consensus process. Shouldn't there be a call for consensus? > > It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing the > solution. This is an interesting opinion. May I translate that to mean that there is already a solution in the minds of the people who wrote the charter? Why then would we bother with the proposed requirements effort, writing down a problem statement and all the rest? Why not put an RFC number on the solution? It also makes me wonder what your opinion on the following from 2418. " - Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an attempt to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of input from IETF participants may be limited?" > What would help with the charter, even now, is for people to > write up proposals for the solution -- ideally in the form of > Internet-Drafts. This seems to be starkly different from the process I know of. Are you really suggesting that people come up with solutions to help with the charter? What problem are we solving? What are the requirements? Based on the proposal that was sent out, we won't have consensus on all of those until Oct 2009 or later. Apr 2009: Working Group Last Call for problem statement Jun 2009: Submit problem statement to IESG as Informational Aug 2009: Working Group Last Call for requirements document Oct 2009: Submit requirements document to IESG as Informational > I haven't yet selected chairs for the WG, so as you > can imagine editors and authors aren't yet selected. > It would be most > excellent to see some individual proposals before a committee gets their > hands on them :) I am sorry Lisa, but I am really confused by your request for proposals before we even agree on the problem. I am hoping for a clarification. thanks, Lakshminath > > Lisa > > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani > <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com <mailto:vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: > > ... > > > And since the BoF, much has changed to narrow the scope of the > charter down to more manageable pieces as well as establish a > channel with IRTF to move certain aspects of the work there > (as the timeline in my previous email indicated.) > > Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > > > > My perception and my understanding of some of the dissenting > opinions > was that some of those need to be worked out before creating a > working group. > > > But I believe that we have done exactly that: the list has been > busy since Dublin on attempts to move the work forward in a manner > that is conducive to all participants. > > > _______________________________________________ p2pi mailing list p2pi@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optim… IESG Secretary
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Sam Hartman
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Richard Barnes
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Daniel Park
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Philip Levis
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… stefano previdi
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… stefano previdi
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Enrico Marocco
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Bruce Davie
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Enrico Marocco
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Jan Seedorf
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Jan Seedorf
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Song Haibin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lars Eggert
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lars Eggert
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Ye WANG
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Philip Levis
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Song Haibin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Das, Saumitra
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Enrico Marocco
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… toby.moncaster
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Karl Auerbach
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Pekka Savola
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Das, Saumitra
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Stanislav Shalunov
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Michael J. Freedman
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Dean Anderson
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Yu-Shun Wang
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Yu-Shun Wang