Fabio Hecht wrote: >> There shouldn't be much risk of ALTO forming a "feedback loop" because >> ALTO is intended only to communicate relatively static information, >> and specifically is not intended to communicate real-time status >> information, which is a transport issue. > > The problem statement reads: > > "Bottlenecks, limited > throughput, and intermittent links often has much more influence on > the peer's perceived quality of service and network utilization than > round-trip time." > > I don't think this refers to static information.
That sentence in its original context was actually supposed to make the point that knowledge of capacity and topology of the underlying links (i.e. static information) is more useful than RTT measurements (i.e. dynamic info) for peer selection in file-sharing applications. Besides, the problem statement is still an individual draft and does not reflect the consensus of the WG; the only document agreed so far is the charter, which clearly states: In any case, this WG will not propose standards on how congestion is signaled, remediated, or avoided, and will not deal with information representing instantaneous network state. -- Ciao, Enrico
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
