I do not support all 7. In my opinion it will be more we can deliver.

The original charter was around, say, 15 months and 4 documents and we are late 
by 2 years.

I think we need a charter with a small number of documents we can deliver in a 
short timeframe.  Nothing wrong to continue to work on other extensions in the 
meantime and including then in another recharter.

Thanks,


From: "Y. Yang" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, January 24, 2014 at 7:53 PM
To: Vijay Gurbani <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: alto <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [alto] Work items for re-chartering

Dear all,

I support all of the 7 items. They provide key functions that together will 
both fill some gaps in the base ALTO protocol and extend ALTO to be more 
useful. As more networks open up to applications (e.g., some recent major 
movement by ChinaTelecom), the new functionalities can be quite helpful to 
allow ALTO to make a bigger impact!

Richard


On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Folks: Over the last few IETFs, Enrico and I have solicited feedback
during face-to-face meetings, WG sessions, hallway conversations, ALTO
mailing list and private conversations on how to move ahead with respect
to adopting new work items.

As we begin the charter discussions, we have identified seven
work items to propose as additions to the charter.  The first four of
these work items are fairly uncontroversial.  The last three are work
items that have a monumental mind share in the ALTO working group and
have been found to be extremely useful in controlled networks (e.g.,
VPNs).  However, we have to take some care in defining these such that
we do not duplicate the functionality available elsewhere (e.g., general
routing) in ALTO, nor do we take on an aspect that the working group
does not fully understand.

Here are the seven items up for discussion:

1. Anycast-based server discovery
   (Presented by Reinaldo Penno in IETF 86 and appears to have
   some support for adoption.)

2. Third-party server discovery
   (Sebastian Kiesel et al. have been driving this work and it
   also appears to have support.)

3. Incremental ALTO map updates
   (Side meeting held during IETF 86; two proposals have been
   studied.  One way forward is to use an ALTO-specific incremental
   update that may be more efficient, and the second approach is to
   simply use JSON patch.)

4. Server-initiated update notifications
   (Jan Seedorf and Enrico Marocco have suggested the use of
   Websockets; HTTP/2.0 may provide some mitigation as well.)

5. Extensions to annotate PIDs with properties (e.g., geographical
   locations).
   (Useful as an extension in controlled environments, e.g., VPNs
   where IP addresses are not the only form of identification.
   Some drafts, including draft-roome-alto-pid-properties
   has already started work in this direction.)

6. Extensions for cost metrics.
   (Some drafts, including draft-wu-alto-json-te, have started work
   in this direction.)

7. An ALTO format for encoding graphs.
   (draft-ietf-alto-protocol already recognizes the need to provide
   topology details that are useful in controlled environments.
   Richard Yang, Greg Bernstein and others have been working on the
   need and use cases for such an encoding.  draft-yang-alto-topology
   is a good start.  Projects like OpenDayLight and NetworkX (Python)
   have JSON models for graph representation.  Some concrete examples
   of how we envision encoding graphs will be useful during list
   discussion.)

We will like to understand whether the working group believe such
additional deliverables, if included in an updated charter proposal,
would allow people to do the extension work that has been repeatedly
proposed. (Clarification: we are explicitly asking whether people could
find such an update acceptable. We understand that anyone will have a
preferred flavor of the above.)

We are at a point where show of support by whoever is interested is
essential for moving forward. If it turns out to be positive, Enrico
and I will subsequently circulate actual text, including milestones, for
a rechartering request.

Thanks.

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com<http://bell-labs.com>,acm.org<http://acm.org>} / 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto



--
--
 =====================================
| Y. Richard Yang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>   |
| Professor of Computer Science       |
| http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/        |
 =====================================
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Reply via email to