Re: [p2pi] Refining the ALTO problem statement

Hi,

On 2008-6-27, at 15:41, ext Laird Popkin wrote:
> I think that we're all in violent agreement in the distinction  
> between long-term network status (e.g. topology, capacity, distance,  
> cost) and transient status (e.g. congestion).

I think we are, although I'd question whether capacity is long-term  
status. If you mean capacity as in "the potential capacity of the  
bottleneck link along a path", then probably yes, but if you mean  
"currently available bottleneck capacity", then likely not.

> I believe that there is also value in exposing "last mile" link  
> status (and capacity, quotas, etc.) to applications to assist them  
> in making better decisions (e.g. avoiding 'last mile' link  
> congestion, avoiding running consumers over their quotas, etc.). So  
> while arguably last-mile link congestion is a "transport layer"  
> issue, if it's not addressed elsewhere, perhaps ALTO should address  
> it?

ALTO, as a BOF targeted at the RAI and APP areas, is not the right  
place to discuss these issues. Transport area topics do need to be  
discussed in transport area meetings.

The original proposal for the transport-area TANA BOF, which came out  
before there was public information about ALTO, had a similar work  
item, because it seemed likely after the P2PI workshop that folks  
would want to discuss mechanisms related to transient network status.  
When the ALTO proposal was submitted, the ADs decided it would make  
more sense to split the work items identified at the P2PI workshop  
into things for TANA and things for ALTO, but it was at least my  
understanding that this split came with an agreement that obviously  
transport-related topics would be out of scope for ALTO.

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