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

Enrico Marocco <> Sun, 19 October 2008 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF3C33A6805; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70403A6805; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.448
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.271, 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 v6rMhSRc67fc; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4993A67B2; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:23:12 +0200
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:23:12 +0200
Received: from [] ([]) by over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:23:11 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:23:09 +0200
From: Enrico Marocco <>
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20080724)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Narayanan, Vidya" <>
References: <><><><><><><><> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Oct 2008 17:23:11.0775 (UTC) FILETIME=[5CB0AAF0:01C9320F]
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
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="===============2035033653=="

Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
>>> With respect to process, I think this one takes the cake among 
>>> abominations.  Having been at the IETF long enough and having 
>>> participated in several BoFs, I'm quite familiar with RFC2418 and
>>> the process.  Here we have an effort that started with a
>>> closed/gated workshop outside the IETF,
>> Actually, this is not so.  The workshop *was* sponsored by IETF;
>> the RAI area, to be more precise (please see 
>> 04758.html).
> My point is that this was a closed effort - it was not a meeting that
> was open to all for attendence.  The fact that the RAI ADs decided to
> do this doesn't automatically make it "IETF sponsored".  Not to
> mention that the topics covered by this workshop or the scope of it
> was not really open to discussion at the IETF.  All of this makes it
> sqauarely an effort outside the IETF and let's not try to pretend it
> was somehow as open as other IETF efforts.

This is simply not true. The P2PI workshop was open to all (including
via jabber) and its main goal, as I read it, was to put together people
interested in addressing the issues P2P traffic poses for Internet
infrastructures. After that, two BOFs had been organized, in the very
same way BOFs are usually organized: some people get together, draft a
problem statement, set a mailing list up, add an entry in the BOF page,
involve the community, discuss, ask a meeting slot during an official
meeting, discuss, draft a charter, discuss, discuss... In a word, as
described in draft-narten-successful-bof.

Unfortunately it isn't possible to measure how much open an effort is,
but if you accept the number of contributions and contributors (as per
3978) as a somewhat meaningful indicator, for ALTO you can count 561
messages posted on the list by 67 different authors (from 6/9, when the
first BOF was announced, to 9/30, when LC began) and 6 I-Ds co-signed by
19 people (Authors and Contributors). Now, if you consider that no one
of such contributors have complained about feeling excluded and instead
all have agreed to move forward with the proposed charter (in fact they
have contributed to the proposed charter), I wouldn't say that it has
been a closed effort.

p2pi mailing list