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

"Narayanan, Vidya" <> Fri, 10 October 2008 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95BB63A67F4; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15BFD3A635F; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qQEeaA7KYFGa; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C103A67F4; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1223670843; x=1255206843; h=from:to:cc:date:subject:thread-topic:thread-index: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language: content-language:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator: acceptlanguage:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version:x-ironport-av; z=From:=20"Narayanan,=20Vidya"=20<>|To: =20Lisa=20Dusseault=20<>,=0D=0A =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20"Dondeti,=20Lakshminath"=0D=0A=09 <>|CC:=20""=20<p2pi@iet>,=20IESG=20IESG=20<>,=0D=0A=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20""=20<>|Date:=20 Fri,=2010=20Oct=202008=2013:34:01=20-0700|Subject:=20RE: =20[p2pi]=20WG=20Review:=20Application-Layer=20Traffic=20 Optimization=20(alto)|Thread-Topic:=20[p2pi]=20WG=20Revie w:=20Application-Layer=20Traffic=20Optimization=20(alto) |Thread-Index:=20AckrDXVyuSkhuijRSkCAKM+froF1JgABZ7Yw |Message-ID:=20<BE82361A0E26874DBC2ED1BA244866B927637489@>|References:=20<2008100620353>=0D=0A=09<BE82361A0E26874DBC>=0D=0A =09<>=20<48EEE549.1080208@qualcom>=0D=0A=09<>=20<48E>=0D=0A=09<48EFA0BE.1040809@alc>=0D=0A=20<ca722a9e0810101221yb84ac3ar8ff0>|In-Reply-To:=20<ca722a9e0810> |Accept-Language:=20en-US|Content-Language:=20en-US |X-MS-Has-Attach:|X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:|acceptlanguage: =20en-US|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3D"us-as cii"|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=20quoted-printable |MIME-Version:=201.0|X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DMcAfee=3Bi=3D"5 300,2777,5402"=3B=20a=3D"10542210"; bh=K9ehEGOYHnjCjKhJI/FgU8sWSGAZZd9htdgBwd/SGwQ=; b=AUUdXI2tdCsRkog99jrRXsR7qjmznpW2zAIcbZjegAYr+45JqlCrZwe7 NPHE+4k1kjgD4Q6ncF2VHs1ApVqRQi222ewVHX0WjGNR1er9l6PN9XLuV pjr1+DcxKtbOZRH3qNx0yORhg1M09jv4Htu+gCVGl8WEi8PwmeEZnOYrW 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5402"; a="10542210"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Oct 2008 13:34:03 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m9AKY2Du031949 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:34:03 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id m9AKY2dd003381 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:34:01 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:34:01 -0700
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <>
To: Lisa Dusseault <>, "Dondeti, Lakshminath" <>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:34:01 -0700
Thread-Topic: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
Thread-Index: AckrDXVyuSkhuijRSkCAKM+froF1JgABZ7Yw
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, IESG IESG <>, "" <>
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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lisa, Enrico, Vijay,
Thanks for the clarifications.  I went through the P2PI mailing list and found some interesting discussions.  There are some topics where I don't yet see consensus and some of the discussions still seem open.  As Marshall, Sam, Lakshminath and I have pointed out, I don't yet see a consensus on whether the ALTO service is a centralized or distributed one.  I also noted some unresolved discussions on the list on the types of information that can be shared as part of this service.

As I've already noted, I do support the work and believe it needs to be done.  But, I don't believe we have sorted out all the charter issues yet and focusing on that discussion would help move this forward.  Instead, I see a lot of emails reinstating the importance of the work and that it needs to move forward.  Well, that's clearly not the point of debate at all here, since I haven't seen anyone say the work is not important.

A couple of notes inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:21 PM
> To: Dondeti, Lakshminath
> Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic
> Optimization (alto)
> Lakshminath and Vidya,
> Vijay, Enrico and Stefano have said what I was going to say
> (e.g. below) -- as sponsoring AD for this charter I've been
> following the WG discussion, working with the rest of the
> IESG, and talking to people to confirm that there's better
> consensus on the list, even if there was confusion at the
> BOF.  This IETF Last Call is also part of confirming whether
> there's now consensus.
> It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing
> the solution. What would help with the charter, even now, is
> for people to write up proposals for the solution -- ideally
> in the form of Internet-Drafts.  I haven't yet selected
> chairs for the WG, so as you can imagine editors and authors
> aren't yet selected.  It would be most excellent to see some
> individual proposals before a committee gets their hands on them :)

The above made me wonder if we are still operating at the IETF :)  We repeatedly chastize people for writing charters with a solution in mind.  I think it is extremely premature to talk about specific solutions, editors and authors - we have more fundamental discussions to be had on scoping the problem and agreeing to what is going to be solved.  I hope we can do that first.


> Lisa
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani
> <> wrote:
>  ...
>       And since the BoF, much has changed to narrow the scope of the
>       charter down to more manageable pieces as well as establish a
>       channel with IRTF to move certain aspects of the work there
>       (as the timeline in my previous email indicated.)
>               Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>               My perception and my understanding of some of
> the dissenting opinions
>               was that some of those need to be worked out
> before creating a working group.
>       But I believe that we have done exactly that: the list has been
>       busy since Dublin on attempts to move the work forward
> in a manner
>       that is conducive to all participants.
p2pi mailing list