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

Enrico Marocco <> Fri, 10 October 2008 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CCC828C0FE; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2059D28C0FE; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.719
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y-Omg1ZbbMPU; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32733A69C5; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:16:07 +0200
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:16:06 +0200
Received: from [] ([]) by over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:16:05 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:15:58 +0200
From: Enrico Marocco <>
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20080724)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lakshminath Dondeti <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2008 12:16:05.0801 (UTC) FILETIME=[F83C6990:01C92AD1]
Cc: Richard Barnes <>, "" <>, "''" <>,
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="===============1814329419=="

Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> The minutes ( 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.

p2pi mailing list