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

"Jan Seedorf" <Jan.Seedorf@nw.neclab.eu> Mon, 13 October 2008 15:07 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 48D5E3A6A3C; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:07:41 -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 1C19C3A6802; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 6Jl+MrP2lLQ5; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu (smtp0.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C19B3A67CC; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83FC32C01918D; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:07:49 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas2.office)
Received: from smtp0.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas2.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C6iIgLblqaQ1; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:07:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from VENUS.office (mx1.office [192.168.24.3]) by smtp0.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ACD82C0012C2; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:07:24 +0200 (CEST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:07:23 +0200
Message-ID: <B94940C43117794C9432FF5FF0CCB5064071B5@VENUS.office>
In-Reply-To: <48EFD2BC.8050706@qualcomm.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
Thread-Index: AckrJRzs7LhiR3/lTGmP1j9rr6vZcgCH7sjg
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> <48EFD2BC.8050706@qualcomm.com>
From: "Jan Seedorf" <Jan.Seedorf@nw.neclab.eu>
To: "Lakshminath Dondeti" <ldondeti@qualcomm.com>, "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
Cc: 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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org

Dear Lakshminath,

> 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 not an IETF veteran, but from my experience it is perfectly ok for post-BoF discussions to happen on the mailing list and for these discussions to resolve some of the controversial issues at the BoF. I think this is was happened with ALTO. I also think that the IESG has been following the discussions on the mailing list and the WG Review is in fact a reaction to the agreement which has been found on the mailing list regarding the disagreements from the BoF.

Just my two cents ...

 - Jan  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:p2pi-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lakshminath Dondeti
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:10 AM
> To: Lisa Dusseault
> Cc: p2pi@ietf.org; IESG IESG; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic 
> Optimization (alto)
> 
> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi