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

Lakshminath Dondeti <> Fri, 10 October 2008 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA62C28C163; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:09:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C4028C118; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.963
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.963 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.636, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cAAfkHae1I6c; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B183928C163; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1223651438; x=1255187438; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-ironport-av; z=Message-ID:=20<>|Date:=20Fr i,=2010=20Oct=202008=2008:10:36=20-0700|From:=20Lakshmina th=20Dondeti=20<>|User-Agent:=20Thun derbird=|MIME-Version:=201 .0|To:=20Enrico=20Marocco=20<enrico.marocco@telecomitalia .it>|CC:=20Richard=20Barnes=20<>,=20"p2pi@"=20<>,=0D=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20"''"=20<>, |Subject:=20Re:=20[p2pi]=20WG=20Review:=20Application-Lay er=20Traffic=20Optimization=20(alto)|References:=20<20081>=09<BE82361A0E26874D>=09<>=20< m>=20<>|In-Reply-To:=20<>|Content-Type:=20text/p lain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8859-15=3B=20format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit|X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DM cAfee=3Bi=3D"5300,2777,5402"=3B=20a=3D"10589960"; bh=nHQ4ocCjG2vQzXOM2k/yxH6OIzd48vQSBYPnbCiagis=; b=iscgiaQv/8MwjShKjun9Kh9rA8TMk+NEION83OHTrP3vKLJ7K/ANj3kW EUl9pnDSuhLaT2pLXnpfu6xH66/r7DCsYSVcA72K7PtyGvjCxb4bqCuuN LavPNAFlV2A8blNf5AV8Ci2AEMG2mnDlDrMVHkEKFYdtjfL/C05oDJeNN A=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5402"; a="10589960"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Oct 2008 08:10:38 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m9AFAbkp029675 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:10:38 -0700
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m9AFAbRs011403 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:10:37 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:10:36 -0700
From: Lakshminath Dondeti <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Enrico Marocco <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Richard Barnes <>, "" <>, "''" <>,
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"

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.


On 10/10/2008 5:15 AM, Enrico Marocco wrote:
> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>> The minutes ( 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