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

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: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:21 PM
> To: Dondeti, Lakshminath
> Cc: p2pi@ietf.org; IESG IESG; ietf@ietf.org
> 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.

Regards,
Vidya

> Lisa
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani
> <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com> 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
p2pi@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi