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

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <> Fri, 10 October 2008 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CAB13A686D; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61DA73A67FB; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OZAxWOPA6aVZ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754FE3A66B4; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m9AIalPw015842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:36:47 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id m9AIakq3027754; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:36:46 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:36:46 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <>
Organization: Bell Labs Security Technology Research Group
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lakshminath Dondeti <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on
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"

Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> Hi Enrico, Vijay,
> Thank you for the summary of what transpired after the Dublin
> meeting. I appreciate you taking the time.

Lakshminath: No problem.  Thank you for your time and effort on

> My reading at the BoF was that there were some concerns about this
> work being done in haste without clearly understanding what it is
> that we want to do and what it is that we need to do to address this
> particular problem space (there were even suggestions to move some of
> the work to the IRTF).

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.)

> 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.

> Some of the disagreements here in this thread now, and the intent of
> some of the folks to whitewash the issues raised do seem
> troublesome.

I sincerely do not believe that we are trying to whitewash any
issues here.  It would seem an awful waste of time of the ADs,
IRTF chair and list participants to engage in detailed discussions
since the Dublin BoF if that were indeed the case.


- vijay
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{,,}
p2pi mailing list