Re: [alto] The origins of the piracy debate...

[Eric Burger]

I would expect that do do content discovery or peer discovery one would need a relatively fixed identifier for that content.

On May 1, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Y. R. Yang wrote:

Hi Eric,

On Fri, 1 May 2009, 3:53pm -0400, Eric Burger wrote:

I think such a proposal would require a globally unique and time invariant

content ID.  That sounds challenging at best.

I am not sure I am following. What requires a globally unique and time
invariant content ID?

Richard

On May 1, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Y. R. Yang wrote:

Hi All,

I found the discussion related with content ID interesting.


into a session tracker so that it may take on additional potential

(e.g., allow caches to register availability, return peers that a

about using it for rights management. I have no problem in adding an
optional Content ID.


is the semantics/meaning that the ALTO info returned is adapted to a

their specific requirements/secret sauce for constructing peer

e.g., a seeder is looking for leechers or a leecher is looking for

is just one of the many inputs. Are we talking about designing an



modular/reusable design, I feel that we should first design the most

useful network information service, which is likely to be content

(e.g., content ID as access control token), content discovery (e.g.,

quite extensible to accommodate new services.

Richard

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, 3:58pm -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:

Pushing upper layer information, in particular, content ID, into ALTO, according to my perspective, is to make it possible to turn an ALTO server functions (depending on the format of the content ID) including content discovery (e.g., discover popular contents, notify caches), peer discovery requesting peer does not know but ALTO server knows), and load balancing (e.g., the discussion on re-balancing). This email thread is discussing But we need to keep in mind that providing the aforementioned functions may lead to a substantially more complex ALTO server architecture and semantics. I am particularly not clear about the statement that it is better for ALTO to provide information in the context of a particular content/swarm/channel (identified by a content ID in an ALTO query). What particular content/swarm/channel? There can be many types of contents, e.g., file (BT block scheduling vs E2dk which uses a priority queue), live streaming, VoD, VoIP, game. Different applications/variants will have communication patterns. A query may be issued in a particular context, seeders. An application may use a lot more information (e.g., who are sources, who are seeders, upload/download capacity, buffer status, playout delay) to construct peer communication patterns. ALTO network information omnipotent ALTO server that functions as a universal application tracker? To make progress, follow the end-to-end design principle, and implement basic, reusable ALTO component, whose function is just to provide simple, independent. Then we can talk about more extensions. Content protection mapping from a content ID to a list of servers), content notification to caches, cache integration, session tracking, peer selection should be independent services, should ALTO provide some of them. The protocols (e.g., ALTO/P4P InfoExport interface descriptor) I have seen so far are

As long as ALTO is defined as a service that maps a content ID to a
collection

system

that

layered on top of ALTO, as I think it should be, as a kind of
DNS-for-content

higher

goes,
not in ALTO.

RB

Nicholas Weaver wrote:

of paths, it seems to me that it's piracy-neutral. I'm disturbed by a that is passed a collection of paths and asked to rank them, as that would seem to have a definite pro-piracy bias. But I agree with Nick (I think) a system that accepts a transient content ID and returns a list of paths is neither pro-piracy or anti-piracy. The rights management function can be that takes some sort of textual description of the content and returns an identifier that ALTO can then use to guide toward the best paths. The level function - the content mapper - can be developed independent of IETF guidance and in accordance with some sort of deal between content producers and network operators. The content mapper is where the rights management

On Apr 30, 2009, at 2:19 PM, DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal) wrote:

Thanks to Enrico and Nicholas for providing additional background and

explanations.

The key point of disagreement seems to be that adding a content

the design of
ALTO."


area, and can't help but wonder if that is, in fact, correct.

Was there a serious investigation or did someone simply do a
back-of-the-envelope analysis.

protection requirement to ALTO would "hugely complicate and compromise I'm not an expert in such matters, have very limited exposure to the

the
time, and ALTO may not have notification when nodes leave.


don't have meaning.  ALTO doesn't want to deal with particular P2P

identifier means ALTO doesn't have to deal with these problems.


utility.



creation) and there becomes an easy countermeasure to ANY system
predicated

than

and

party.


it".


remove

in
a localization service.




to

system.

_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

For me, its "Intuition backed up by a threat analysis and usage cases": We have legitimate uses which requires ID churn: its the only way to guarantee that a rebalancing is fresh. Especially since nodes churn all We have legitimate uses which require IDs to be arbitrary (rather than representative hashes): ALTO is not just for file distribution, but other P2P optimization (eg, optimizing for low latency for DHTs) where hashes protocols, which all may have different representations of what data or blocks are. And doesn't want to deal with colliding namespaces from different P2P programs. Thus defining ID as a UUID or other opaque We have legitimate uses which require IDs to be creatable at- will by any party: Otherwise, ALTO becomes an admission only system which limits Yet all three decisions (allowing churn, opaque-data IDs, at- will ID on "block bad IDs", as long as that system has a slower response time the P2P network you are trying to prevent optimizing its communication, you can't do "only allow good IDs" if IDs are creatable at-will by any And "if a defense has a trivial countermeasure, don't bother deploying Thus this means the only way to make ALTO "content protecting" is to one of those three constraints. But all three features are very valuable Additionally, there is a large bias in the network community in general be "content neutral". Any time you cease to be content neutral on the technical level, it must necessarily impose constraints and costs on the

_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
alto@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto