Hi Sabine, Thanks a lot for the nice comments. Please see below.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:13 PM, RANDRIAMASY, SABINE (SABINE) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sebastian, Richard and all, > > I definitely agree with the text before 1.1. referring to the pb statement > and requirements RFCs. > I also agree on the "link bandwidth mine field" issue. However, an ALTO > Server does not need to unveil the true values to provide guidance w.r.t. > such values. Therefore how about adding at the end of section 1.2.1 > "Service providers" some text like: > > "Without unveiling sensitive and confidential information on the provider > network state, an ALTO Server can provide applications with its preferences > w.r.t. metrics such as e.g. monetary costs, bandwidth and delay; the > preference for instance may abstract real metric values in a non real time > numerical score or cost or an ordinal rank." > > The clarification makes sense. We will add the idea. > As for the discussion during the interim meeting on whether to keep a 1.5 > pages Introduction section or shorten it drastically and redirect the > reader to the Pb statement RFC: although this will be a IESG decision, I'd > like to back Rich Alimi who prefers documents that are somewhat > self-contained and pointed that many people are reluctant to fetch and read > tens of document pages just to have a glimpse. The ALTO protocol is widely > promoted in the technical literature, usually with some 5-10 presentation > lines and a reference to the "ALTO Protocol" document. The latter is very > well written and having a 1.5 pages clear introduction makes it > self-contained. > The newer version tries to maintain the self-contained flavor. There is one round of revision already and we will post a new revision by Monday to get more feedback. Thanks again! Richard > > Thanks, > Sabine > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de > Sebastian Kiesel > Envoyé : jeudi 20 juin 2013 08:46 > À : Y. Richard Yang > Cc : IETF ALTO > Objet : Re: [alto] draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16: introduction section > > Hi Richard, > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 09:49:47PM -0400, Y. Richard Yang wrote: > > > One more comment about section 1.2.2, which says: > > > > > > For example, a peer-to-peer overlay application can use information > > > provided by an ALTO Service to avoid selecting peers connected with > > > low bandwidth links. > > > > > > > > > ALTO and link bandwidth is a mine field - not impossible at all, but > > > difficult, see the long discussions we had, partly summarized in sec. > > > 8.2.3 of draft-ietf-alto-deployments-06. Therefore I think it would > > > be wise to use a less controversial example here, say: > > > > > > > > > For example, a peer-to-peer overlay application can use information > > > provided by an ALTO Service to avoid selecting peers connected via > > > intercontinental (i.e., high-delay) links. > > > > > > > > > > > I like the revision. I may suggest some change to the wording, since > > some two points in two continents may be closer to some two > > intra-continent > > points: > > > > For example, a peer-to-peer overlay application can use information > > provided by an ALTO Service to avoid selecting peers connected via > > high-delay links (e.g., some intercontinental links). > > > > What do you think? > > Even better! > > Thanks > Sebastian > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
