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

[Lakshminath Dondeti <[e-mail]>]

Hi Enrico, Vijay,

Thank you for the summary of what transpired after the Dublin meeting. 
I appreciate you taking the time.

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).  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.  We have been in situations where working groups have 
been created in haste to address important and urgent problems, but then 
people disagree so much in working groups that some such working groups 
never made any real progress or had to be shut down (folks, please don't 
try to guess which WG(s) and try to explain the individual situations; 
thanks).  Surely, we don't want that to happen here.

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.

It would be great if we could rather focus on trying to understand all 
aspects of the problem, have the charter reflect the correct level of 
scope (too wide or too narrow are problematic as we know), and move forward.

thanks,
Lakshminath

On 10/10/2008 5:15 AM, Enrico Marocco wrote:
> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>> The minutes (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/minutes/alto.txt) say
>> this:
>>
>> +++++++++++++++
>> Many people agreed that this is important work for the IETF, also some
>> (less) people hummed against.  Hum was inconclusive - some of the "no"
>> hums were (in Jon's words) vehement.
>> +++++++++++++++
>>
>> Given that there was no consensus, it would have been nice if the
>> sponsoring AD(s) or the IESG explained what's going on, but then
>> transparency, it appears, is not really a goal in this case.  If the
>> idea was to just go forward anyway, we really wasted 3, may be 6 months.
>>   The half measures are a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> Lakshminath, the objections raised during the BoF in Dublin were on very
> specific issues, namely the "general service discovery problem"
> supposedly addressed by the charter, a too broad scope in terms of
> information exchanged between ALTO clients and ALTO servers, and the
> connection between traffic localization and optimization someone seemed
> to see implied in the problem statement. During the weeks following the
> meeting, people who had expressed concerns at the mic and on the list
> constructively contributed to the discussion and the group converged on
> a charter the current version is a slight variant of. For this reason,
> and for the amount of interest shown in Dublin  -- we called
> inconclusive the hum on the charter, but interest in the problem was
> made pretty clear by what we heard at the mic, by the number of
> contributors, and by the number of people in the room -- we managed to
> convince our sponsoring AD (and transitively the IESG) to send it out
> for IETF-wide review. If the community identifies new serious issues or
> considers the old ones not completely addressed, probably a new BoF will
> be the best way to sort them out.
> 
> Of course I'm only speaking for myself, not certainly on behalf of Lisa
> nor the IESG.
> 
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi