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

[Lakshminath Dondeti <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the clarification Enrico :).

best,
Lakshminath

On 10/10/2008 6:27 PM, Enrico Marocco wrote:
> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>>> 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?
> 
> Nope. Who has been following the p2pi list for the last five months
> probably knows that there are three different approaches (solutions?)
> floating around: the "sorting oracle" (described in a SIGCOMM paper
> authored by folks from TU-Berlin, a variant of which is IDIPS), P4P
> (soon to be published as I-D and, IIRC, described in another SIGCOMM
> paper), and Stanislav's proposal (discussed in Dublin and on the list:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2pi/current/msg00508.html). Who
> wrote the charter had all those approaches clear in mind and took
> special care that none of them got ruled out.
> 
>> 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?"
> 
> I don't know Lisa's opinion, but am sure that this is not the case here.
> 
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi