Re: [p2pi] ALTO BoF - generalize the problem

[Damien Saucez <[e-mail]>]

Saverio,

Saverio Niccolini wrote:

>Dear Damien,
>
>I see your point but in my opinion it does not make sense to go
>broader that what ALTO is already right now.
>
>I see ALTO problem statement and requirements a good trade-off of
>trying to be general while trying to address a well scoped problem
>area. --> that is the real challenge and I think ALTO people is
>doing a great job on this.
>
>As also Bruce pointed out:
>- a BOF which has too broad a scope is unlikely to lead  
>successfully to a working group. (IETF non-written rule)
>
>I would encourage you to help the ALTO work in getting chartered
>  
>
Of course I'll do.

>instead of claiming for "the general framework" that is most probably
>not going to get consensus.
>  
>
But I'll try because for me it is the key point for the future of the 
Internet. Look at what is happening on the control plane, it's 
completely out of control with protocol redundancy. Control plane is 
ugly because most of the protocols have been design without taking care 
of what is done in other domains (which do the same things but with 
other low level objectives).

Regards,

Damien Saucez

>Saverio
>
>============================================================
>Dr. Saverio Niccolini
>Manager, Real-Time Communications Group
>NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division	
>Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg
>Tel.     [phone]
>Fax:     [phone]
>e-mail:  [e-mail] <-- !!! NEW ADDRESS !!!
>============================================================
>NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria
>Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014
> 
>  
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
>>Behalf Of Damien Saucez
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:31 PM
>>To: Saverio Niccolini
>>Cc: Olivier Bonaventure; [e-mail]; PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri
>>Subject: Re: [p2pi] ALTO BoF - generalize the problem
>>
>>Saverio,
>>
>>Saverio Niccolini wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Ok,
>>>
>>>I now get your point:
>>>you do not like P2P as being the application ALTO is focusing on.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>We are not against P2Ps and we know that P2P is a major 
>>application for the ALTO problem. However, we think that it 
>>is really important to focus ALTO on all the applications and 
>>not on to say "ok, ALTO works also with other applications than P2P".
>>
>>Of course, when I read the drafts and the mails, I can see 
>>that you what to be independent, but it seems to be a 
>>secondary requirement and for me the genericity is the key of ALTO.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Actually:
>>>-- P2P is written in the problem statement and in every 
>>>      
>>>
>>motivation of 
>>    
>>
>>>ALTO because P2P are the type of applications motivating Application 
>>>Layer Traffic Optmization. --> this is a real-world problem IETf is 
>>>here to address
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>P2P is not the only real-world problem. We are from the 
>>routing world and we observe that you have the same problems 
>>as us and surprisingly the same solutions (the oracle and 
>>IDIPS have been designed independently and are more or less 
>>the same, the oracle was for P2P and IDIPS comes from NAROS 
>>discussed for the IPv6 multihoming problem), so what the 
>>draft says is to work together to avoid making systems doing 
>>the same things independently (waste or ressources).
>>
>>    
>>
>>>In your draft you are not providing evidence why the general 
>>>      
>>>
>>framework 
>>    
>>
>>>would be needed by other type of applications, thus I do not see why 
>>>the group should be considering this option.
>>>
>>>As such I see: P2P are motivating this work and there is not 
>>>      
>>>
>>evidence 
>>    
>>
>>>that other type of applications would need what you call 
>>>      
>>>
>>"the general framework"
>>    
>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>Moreover:
>>>-- if you look at the requirements draft 
>>>(http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kiesel-alto-reqs-00.txt)
>>>there is an explicit sentence where it is written:
>>>"The goal of ALTO is to provide information which can help peer-to- 
>>>peer (P2P) applications to make better decisions with 
>>>      
>>>
>>respect to peer 
>>    
>>
>>>selection.  However, ALTO may be useful for non-P2P applications as 
>>>well."
>>>
>>>In the requirement draft P2P applications are only used as 
>>>      
>>>
>>examples but 
>>    
>>
>>>the requirements are general for every type of application.
>>>
>>>This express why I said: "ALTO is not application specific".
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>As last thing:
>>>I think we do not agree on terminology:
>>>you can not say ALTO is application specific if it considers 
>>>      
>>>
>>a class of 
>>    
>>
>>>applications (P2P ones) and it also meant to be useful for 
>>>      
>>>
>>non-P2P ones.
>>    
>>
>>>P2P is indeed NOT application-specific, any type of 
>>>      
>>>
>>application can use 
>>    
>>
>>>the P2P paradigm.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Sure, we don't say alto is related to application XYZ, but is 
>>limited to the application layer (AL stands for Application 
>>Layer) and people working on the problem mainly come from the 
>>P2P world. Once again, the idea of the discussion is to 
>>insist on the fact that ALTO can be very generic without 
>>sacrifying anything. IDIPS works with LISP, SHIM6, dual stack 
>>machines, P2P, FTP or CDNs so our solutions (P4P, oracle) 
>>should probably also work with many different paradigms and 
>>what we would like is to extend ALTO to that point.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Maybe you want to re-phrase your statement?
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Saverio
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Thanks for your discussion Saverio.
>>
>>Damien Saucez
>>
>>    
>>
>>>============================================================
>>>Dr. Saverio Niccolini
>>>Manager, Real-Time Communications Group
>>>NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Research Division	
>>>Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg
>>>Tel.     [phone]
>>>Fax:     [phone]
>>>e-mail:  [e-mail] <-- !!! NEW ADDRESS !!!
>>>============================================================
>>>NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, 
>>>London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>p2pi mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

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