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

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <> Fri, 10 October 2008 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26FE33A69AB; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED553A69AB for <>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YwO1bc-93D+b for <>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CEC93A6861 for <>; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m9AETV6n006553 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:29:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id m9AETUZn000169; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:29:31 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:29:29 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <>
Organization: Bell Labs Security Technology Research Group
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lakshminath Dondeti <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on
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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1323336145=="

Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> 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.  

Lakshminath: I respectfully submit that transparency has not been
obviated here.  The BoF in Dublin indicated that some people
hummed against it, but there was a vigorous discussion on the
mailing list immediately on why people hummed against ALTO and
what should be done to rectify the deficiencies moving forward.

By and large, the hums against were because (1) it was thought
that the initial charter was too broad; (2) there was an element
of "research", not "engineering" inherent in the charter; (3)
the charter attempted to find an "optimal" peer, whereas
optimality is a function of different things at a specific point
in time; (4) we unfortunately used the term "oracle" in the
BoF charter, which many people took to assume that we were
trying to standardize a solution already.

Since the Dublin BoF, Enrico and I, guided by the list
participants have attempted to resolve all of the above.
To wit,

Aug 1, 2008: End of Dublin IETF.

Aug 7, 2008: A new version of charter proposed on mailing list
  that took in account discussions at the Dublin BoF.
  (please see
  Those that hummed against the old charter were happy
  with the new one.

Aug 7, 2008: A thread started on the mailing list to agree on
  what kind of information will be provided in ALTO
  (please see

Aug 21, 2008: Opened up a channel with IRTF chair to move some
  work that was deemed as "research" to the p2prg.

Sept. 12, 2008: A revised version of the charter resulting from
   Aug 7, 2008 was posted on the list (please see

Sept. 18, 2008: Email sent out to the list that the revised
   charter resulting from Sept. 12, 2008 will be sent to IESG
   (please see:

Sept. 30, 2008: Email to list that the charter has been sent out
   for IETF-wide last call (please see:

Oct. 6, 2008: Charter appears on IETF announcement list.

> I for one think that there needs to be much more clarity on the goals 
> and the terminology before just moving forward and producing useless RFCs.

I agree, and I sincerely believe that we have used the last few
months after Dublin ensuring that what you write above does not


- vijay
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{,,}
p2pi mailing list