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

[Bruce Davie <[e-mail]>]

I think Enrico's summary is a good one as I saw things. I am pleased  
to see how much work has gone into refining the charter since Dublin,  
as there was clearly an interest in getting this problem tackled by  
the IETF if the problem definition could be more clearly defined.  The  
IETF has traditionally prided itself in making progress quickly and  
not only in face to face meetings - it is good to see that is the goal  
here as well.

I support the formation of the WG.

Bruce Davie


On Oct 10, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Enrico Marocco wrote:

> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>> The minutes (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/minutes/ 
>> alto.txt) say
>> this:
>>
>> +++++++++++++++
>> Many people agreed that this is important work for the IETF, also  
>> some
>> (less) people hummed against.  Hum was inconclusive - some of the  
>> "no"
>> hums were (in Jon's words) vehement.
>> +++++++++++++++
>>
>> 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.  If the
>> idea was to just go forward anyway, we really wasted 3, may be 6  
>> months.
>>  The half measures are a waste of everyone's time.
>
> Lakshminath, the objections raised during the BoF in Dublin were on  
> very
> specific issues, namely the "general service discovery problem"
> supposedly addressed by the charter, a too broad scope in terms of
> information exchanged between ALTO clients and ALTO servers, and the
> connection between traffic localization and optimization someone  
> seemed
> to see implied in the problem statement. During the weeks following  
> the
> meeting, people who had expressed concerns at the mic and on the list
> constructively contributed to the discussion and the group converged  
> on
> a charter the current version is a slight variant of. For this reason,
> and for the amount of interest shown in Dublin  -- we called
> inconclusive the hum on the charter, but interest in the problem was
> made pretty clear by what we heard at the mic, by the number of
> contributors, and by the number of people in the room -- we managed to
> convince our sponsoring AD (and transitively the IESG) to send it out
> for IETF-wide review. If the community identifies new serious issues  
> or
> considers the old ones not completely addressed, probably a new BoF  
> will
> be the best way to sort them out.
>
> Of course I'm only speaking for myself, not certainly on behalf of  
> Lisa
> nor the IESG.
>
> -- 
> Ciao,
> Enrico
> _______________________________________________
> p2pi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi

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