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

Lakshminath Dondeti <> Fri, 10 October 2008 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD46728C108; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717AA3A6A2E; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.099
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id abQ2UjDKX4un; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 472BB3A696A; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; 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<>|Date:=20Fr i,=2010=20Oct=202008=2015:10:04=20-0700|From:=20Lakshmina th=20Dondeti=20<>|User-Agent:=20Thun derbird=|MIME-Version:=201 .0|To:=20Lisa=20Dusseault=20<> |CC:=20""=20<>,=20IESG=20IESG =20<>,|Subject:=20Re:=20[p2p i]=20WG=20Review:=20Application-Layer=20Traffic=20Optimiz ation=20(alto)|References:=20<20081006203532.B1D673A68AF@>=09=20<BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9276>=09=20<48EEB19C.4000303>=20<>=09=20<48EF477>=20<48EF706C.9050508@qualcomm. com>=09=20<>=20<ca722a> |In-Reply-To:=20<ca722a9e0810101221yb84ac3ar8ff0f267718c8>|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 (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Oct 2008 15:10:06 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (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 [] ( []) by (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: <>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:10:04 -0700
From: Lakshminath Dondeti <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lisa Dusseault <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>, IESG IESG <>,
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

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.


> Lisa
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani 
> < <>> 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