Y. R. Yang wrote:
I was thinking about the second meeting on my long trip back to east
coast. Below is a friendly, but critical comment on the second
meeting that I wrote on the way.
Richard: No worries; critical comments imply someone actually
cares a great deal.
Now, it seems that there has been an undue amount of consternation
on my inclusion of P4P/Infoexport in ellipse 2. Clearly,
I don't consider the merged P4P/Infoexport to be on one extreme
of the spectrum. As you (and others) have pointed out, it is
expansive enough to include multiple possibilities (preferences,
ranking, etc.) The reason I put it in ellipse 2 when the
question was raised on the list was that P4P/Infoexport was
fleshed out well enough that it did not fit in ellipse 4 (where
we don't know what the request and response will be), nor did it
neatly fit in ellipse 3 (where the request and response were
wild-carded, implying uncertainty at worst and multiplicity
of options at best. And while P4P/Infoexport implied the
latter, it certainly did not imply the former.) To the extent
that my inclusion of P4P/Infoexport in ellipse 2 has caused
any discomfort to its authors, I readily apologize.
I will now refrain from mapping P4P/Infoexport into any ellipse
since it was expressly not our intent to map solutions to an
ellipse. The ellipses simply represented coarse grained views
of where we were and where we are headed.
As I understand it, the authors of the various solution drafts
had a meeting after the additional session and much consensus
has been reached. Absent any other summary from the discussion,
I think Rich's conclusion from his original email sums this up:
We are working together to solve an important problem
that ISPs and the Internet have in general: the inefficiency
of overlay routing, and lack of policy information available
in machine-readable form. We have a proposal that we believe
helps solve the problem to the satisfaction of both
communities.
To summarize, I greatly appreciate your effort for chairing the
working group. It is a lot of work! It may be much helpful if the
agenda has been sent out earlier for feedback and comments.
I presume you mean the agenda for the additional session. If so,
you may recall that we were in touch with the authors of the
various solutions draft to intimate them of a possible session
as the request worked its way through the IETF secretariat. It
was not until Saturday that we knew the request was approved and
on Sunday a room was announced. On Monday we sent an email to
the WG list officially announcing the session (please see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg00187.html).
There wasn't much in the form of an agenda except that we
thought bringing various solution proposal authors in the
same room will spur discussions. The now infamous ellipse
slide was created Wed evening with the intent to summarize
approaches and move discussion forward.
Please continue the discussions and let the WG know what the
status is as things progress.
Thank you for all your work,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: v...@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
