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

"Lisa Dusseault" <> Fri, 10 October 2008 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70DB73A697B; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4972C3A6888 for <>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:20:16 -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 Jjlbvbb2ibhW for <>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E5B3A6846 for <>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b25so627147rvf.49 for <>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:21:02 -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=F+kWSYxEV4cUPloW+AF48M+3TWooXJKywhVo35vrgWU=; b=JhlmF6nsPuNc7jQQvQFxDYnvDhjf8XwdDcYlYGBrDaj3oIPdjZJjTTzZ72cyHJVa5c pOxRZtGuo4bA1JkoecmVNAz7R7JBHwiDbXwJjnfYhUc8bOq1NJYbxjge4xesSvljqsuv 1p6MiDfvPeTI1a4qtIMihpNBX2X1bfFSa3QqI=
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=S181FJpHCqUQYRTqAQ2ob1D/hvreHKuLrFatjehQ3J0HPZnYnhKPNjr0WT9+9KYr79 h3O0q4SLfHOwcyPYhiKQ2bXM5cr8vItjNAW4j1AcmJZgAQ/djX3gFrVWlbZMuV7Yn7Ba rKD9MwFbpHYBk+TOykk11NthOmjFgb/fqEl1c=
Received: by with SMTP id g14mr1420944rvj.241.1223666462177; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:21:02 -0700
From: "Lisa Dusseault" <>
To: "Lakshminath Dondeti" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
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-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1996140781=="

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

It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing the solution.
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.  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 :)


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


> 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