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

[Enrico Marocco <[e-mail]>]

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.

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi