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

Stanislav Shalunov <> Tue, 21 October 2008 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9769128C18F; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7EE3A6A92 for <>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.532
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gFbca-vBCYfb for <>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2D23A6BA5 for <>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 26so2846452agb.12 for <>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 15mr10865867ane.50.1224628074839; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ? ( []) by with ESMTPS id 4sm11090082yxd.2.2008. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <>
From: Stanislav Shalunov <>
To: Pekka Savola <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:27:51 -0700
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"

On Oct 13, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> I believe this work could be useful and would provide an improvement  
> over existing p2p usage and traffic management.

I also believe that an ALTO WG should be formed and would like to  
contribute to a solutions draft.

The current requirements and problem statement are scoped rather  
narrowly around a solution in mind.  This is recognized by the BoF  
chairs and the authors, and I would be interested in contributing to  
these documents so that they more generally applicable.

A solutions draft should be a start to help think about the solutions  
space.  The starting point for the solutions idea is described at

This is intended to answer Lisa's call for example candidate solutions  
to better understand the space.  The solution will emphasize  
simplicity, privacy, and, correspondingly, clear understanding of what  
information is given to whom.

The question at hand is not consensus on the requirements or even  
problem statement, but just the charter.

I believe the charter has by now been crafted with the intention of  
covering the known cases.

One small concern that I didn't previously raise because I just  
noticed it is that the charter still says
"A request/response protocol for querying the ALTO service to obtain
   information useful for peer selection, and a format for requests and

This starts to specify an architecture.  While the known candidate  
solutions seem to fit, I would prefer clarifying that it's not request/ 
response protocol or data format that's the point, but the information.

One way of doing so would to to rephrase as follows:

"A complete mechanisms that enables clients to learn from the ALTO  
service information useful for peer selection."

Again, this should go forward.

Thanks,  -- Stas

Stanislav Shalunov

p2pi mailing list