Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
"Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com> Thu, 16 October 2008 19:33 UTC
Return-Path: <p2pi-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: p2pi-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-p2pi-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8905B3A6A7D; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2pi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBDD53A6A6B; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.37
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dSqo4+upn8Dn; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com (paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com [208.17.35.58]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8EE3A6452; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([24.40.15.118]) by paoakoavas09.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id KP-NTF18.61622455; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:34:07 -0400
Received: from PACDCEXCMB06.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.22]) by PACDCEXCSMTP04.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:34:07 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:34:06 -0400
Message-ID: <74CCBBDF76102846AFA7B29F3A98D3F6028962CF@PACDCEXCMB06.cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9276377F6@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
Thread-Index: Acku9XWB0IwKs4r6Siyxc25RnVcIeAAHltmQACuntKA=
References: <20081006203532.B1D673A68AF@core3.amsl.com><BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9276373BA@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com><48EFA1B7.7010508@alcatel-lucent.com><BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B92763750C@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com><48F36E15.2000408@alcatel-lucent.com><BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B927637717@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com><48F60A4F.3010604@alcatel-lucent.com><ca722a9e0810151139q29705f8bm9e02ab5eb0dd27ec@mail.gmail.com> <BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B9276377F6@NALASEXMB08.na.qualcomm.com>
From: "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
To: "Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan@qualcomm.com>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2008 19:34:07.0714 (UTC) FILETIME=[27F49420:01C92FC6]
Cc: p2pi@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
X-BeenThere: p2pi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: P2P Infrastructure Discussion <p2pi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/p2pi>
List-Post: <mailto:p2pi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi>, <mailto:p2pi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org
Vidya, >This would be a big mistake on our part. b) is not a research problem and it is very much related to the same problem being solved in ALTO. Personally, I can see that there is value in "b): information that peers decide to make available about themselves to other peers for this purpose". Your example below was information about whether a client is on a wireless network. In an earlier thread, I had suggested that clients may want to reveal their "available access bandwidth" in a similar fashion; see <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2pi/current/msg00658.html>. So even as an "ISP person", I can see where you are coming from. But if I am interpreting RFC 2418 correctly <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418>, it is not sufficient to decide if "b)" is a worthy IETF activity, but that there are enough participants working on "b)" for an IETF effort to be successful. Quoting from parts of RFC 2418 section 2.1: "Is there sufficient interest within the IETF in the working group's topic with enough people willing to expend the effort to produce the desired result (e.g., a protocol specification)?" "Is there enough expertise within the IETF in the working group's topic, and are those people interested in contributing in the working group?" "Does a base of interested consumers (end-users) appear to exist for the planned work? Consumer interest can be measured by participation of end-users within the IETF process, as well as by less direct means." You said: >Given that Lisa is looking for solutions, I almost wish I have a solution thought out :) But, I don't. Are you volunteering to work on requirements and/or solutions for "b)"? Would others? (I may be interested and supportive in the future, although right now I am predictably focused on activities related to "a)".) If there isn't a quorum to work on "b)" right now, this could be revisited in the future with a re-charter of ALTO, when such a quorum does exist. If there is a quorum, it would be helpful to hear about it. -- Rich -----Original Message----- From: p2pi-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:p2pi-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Narayanan, Vidya Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 7:48 PM To: Lisa Dusseault; Vijay K. Gurbani Cc: p2pi@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto) Lisa, > > > There's plenty of work to do in a). My recommendation based > on estimation of appropriate scope as well as an estimation > of the consensus here, would be to do that first -- to have a > charter that is scoped to (a). Then the possibilities for > (b) include working in the P2P research group, individual > submissions, and /or a new BoF/WG. Another option would be a > future charter update for ALTO if it's successful and there's > consensus for it to be the basis for (b). > This would be a big mistake on our part. b) is not a research problem and it is very much related to the same problem being solved in ALTO. Letting each p2p application come up with its own mechanism of doing b) only kills the interoperability and extensibility. We keep talking about scope creep here, but, we seem to miss something critical. By not keeping the related problems together in producing solutions, we are only increasing the number of different mechanisms that are going to be needed in future to provide this one service - I cannot understand why that is a good thing. Without allowing for b), I think information that a) gives you can be more or less useless in some circumstances. Let me provide some additional context here. One of the pieces of information that is important to allow wireless devices to participate in p2p networks is the basic fact that a given node is wireless. This may place some fundamentally different criteria on path selection decisions that cannot be deduced simply with topology information. For any forward looking work we do at the IETF, we must stop designing just for wired (and stationary) devices. These are the designs that tend to look horrible when adapted to the wireless (and mobile) world and I seriously hope that that is not where we are headed with this work. Best regards, Vidya > Lisa > _______________________________________________ p2pi mailing list p2pi@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi _______________________________________________ p2pi mailing list p2pi@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optim… IESG Secretary
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Sam Hartman
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Richard Barnes
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Daniel Park
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Philip Levis
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… stefano previdi
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… stefano previdi
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Enrico Marocco
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Bruce Davie
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Enrico Marocco
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Martin Stiemerling
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Jan Seedorf
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Jan Seedorf
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Song Haibin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lars Eggert
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lars Eggert
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Ye WANG
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Philip Levis
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Song Haibin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Das, Saumitra
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Enrico Marocco
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… toby.moncaster
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Laird Popkin
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Karl Auerbach
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Pekka Savola
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Das, Saumitra
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Stanislav Shalunov
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Michael J. Freedman
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Dean Anderson
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Yu-Shun Wang
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Woundy, Richard
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Narayanan, Vidya
- Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic O… Yu-Shun Wang