On Jul 28, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
I've just learned in the session that there is actually a loss of functionality in the merger between Proxidor & P4P: the sorting server-based oracle is just gone.

Proxidor capability of ranking/rating paths is still there and functionality
is entirely preserved.

See section 4 of the draft for details.

s.


Any reason that this is not documented?

 Martin

[email protected]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Martin Stiemerling
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:56 AM
To: alto
Subject: [alto] General comment about draft-penno-alto- protocol-03.txt

Hi all,

I have a general comment about draft-penno-alto-protocol-03.txt after
reading it and some more  comments:

The draft tries to incorporates now all other in parallel existing
approaches (i.e., P4P, ALTO Info Export, Query/Response, ATTP, and
Proxidor) but without any major discussion about the usefulness of
this. All approaches have their pros and cons, and they are quite
different ways of tackling with ALTO. The discussion about the various proposal just started and IMHO it was not clear which of the many does
actually address the general challenges of ALTO.

This means (taking some as example):
- P4P addresses the challenges out of the P4P project, which the
specific mechanics of Comcast and Pando. I do see the value of P4P, but
it is one case how you could do it, i.e., I'm not saying that this is
bad. I like the approach very much. However, I do not (yet) see the
evidence that P4P works for tracker-less P2P and in other deployments,
even though most of the people believe this.

- Proxidor has a different view IMHO to ALTO, i.e., very operator
driven. By solely integrating this, there might be a loss of
functionality, e.g., Proxidor works also tracker-less p2p.

- ATTP was a bit orthogonal to the other approaches and less to do with
ALTO (even though it is related).


Second, I couldn't really find out what parts are from the various
other incorporated protocols, other than this looks as an evolved P4P
proposal without explicitly saying what the benefits of the merger from
the various protocols are.

The protocol claims to "At the same time, it introduces additional
techniques  to address potential scalability and privacy issues."
(first paragraph, 2nd sentence of Section 2). However, I'm clueless
after reading what these techniques are and why they're not discussed
in the security section (privacy as term pops up in this sentence, and
nowhere else).

Thanks,

 Martin


[email protected]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014

_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Reply via email to