Re: [p2pi] ALTO BoF - generalize the problem

[Damien Saucez <[e-mail]>]

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