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

"Narayanan, Vidya" <> Wed, 15 October 2008 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7948E3A6A31; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCA83A6A31; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.566
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.633, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xxzsdOPBMvoZ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132833A69EC; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1224114481; x=1255650481; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:thread-topic:thread-index: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: acceptlanguage:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version:x-ironport-av; z=From:=20"Narayanan,=20Vidya"=20<>|To: =20Lisa=20Dusseault=20<>,=0D=0A =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20"Vijay=20K.=20Gurbani"=0D=0A=09<v>|CC:=20""=20<p2pi@ietf .org>,=20""=20<>|Date:=20Wed, =2015=20Oct=202008=2016:47:45=20-0700|Subject:=20RE:=20[p 2pi]=20WG=20Review:=20Application-Layer=20Traffic=20Optim ization=20(alto)|Thread-Topic:=20[p2pi]=20WG=20Review:=20 Application-Layer=20Traffic=20Optimization=20(alto) |Thread-Index:=20Acku9XWB0IwKs4r6Siyxc25RnVcIeAAHltmQ |Message-ID:=20<BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9276377F6@>|References:=20<2008100620353>=0D=0A=09=20<BE82361A0E26874>=0D =0A=09=20<>=0D=0A=09 =20<BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B92763750C@NALASEXMB08.>=0D=0A=09=20<48F36E15.2000408@alcatel-luc>=0D=0A=09=20<BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B92763>=0D=0A=09=20<48F60A4F.30>=0D=0A=20<ca722a9e0810151139q297>|In-Reply-To:=20<ca >|Accept-Language:=20en-US|Content-Language:=20en-US |X-MS-Has-Attach:|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|acceptlanguage: =20en-US|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-as cii"|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |MIME-Version:=201.0|X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DMcAfee=3Bi=3D"5 300,2777,5406"=3B=20a=3D"10938205"; bh=xbuaznDPZnsHR1iB/XWI3zRuMaXH97o5Eo58e0lnCVY=; b=lSpIGYyLE4LuT+Q/VYfExdEzpfvmmAMsbI8vH0o4vtYHMzVdrORX4KAE F7boq1mCGYi1dvK6H8GzZEipit7tVhbzNPY1DKdN2zwj8Zv2rdJ4MEA5r +bUy+08b44nxFqd2nLPhcTy9R/xFYoRBieEQuQr7FdSBSpDky7BoIDQHK Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5406"; a="10938205"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 15 Oct 2008 16:47:45 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m9FNlij0000909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:47:45 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m9FNliVR017553 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:47:44 -0700
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:47:44 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:47:43 -0700
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <>
To: Lisa Dusseault <>, "Vijay K. Gurbani" <>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:47:45 -0700
Thread-Topic: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
Thread-Index: Acku9XWB0IwKs4r6Siyxc25RnVcIeAAHltmQ
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> There's plenty of work to do in a).  My recommendation based
> on estimation of appropriate scope as well as an estimation
> of the consensus here, would be to do that first -- to have a
> charter that is scoped to (a).  Then the possibilities for
> (b) include working in the P2P research group, individual
> submissions, and /or a new BoF/WG.  Another option would be a
> future charter update for ALTO if it's successful and there's
> consensus for it to be the basis for (b).

This would be a big mistake on our part.  b) is not a research problem and it is very much related to the same problem being solved in ALTO.  Letting each p2p application come up with its own mechanism of doing b) only kills the interoperability and extensibility.  We keep talking about scope creep here, but, we seem to miss something critical.  By not keeping the related problems together in producing solutions, we are only increasing the number of different mechanisms that are going to be needed in future to provide this one service - I cannot understand why that is a good thing.

Without allowing for b), I think information that a) gives you can be more or less useless in some circumstances.  Let me provide some additional context here.  One of the pieces of information that is important to allow wireless devices to participate in p2p networks is the basic fact that a given node is wireless.  This may place some fundamentally different criteria on path selection decisions that cannot be deduced simply with topology information.

For any forward looking work we do at the IETF, we must stop designing just for wired (and stationary) devices.  These are the designs that tend to look horrible when adapted to the wireless (and mobile) world and I seriously hope that that is not where we are headed with this work.

Best regards,

> Lisa
p2pi mailing list