On 04/28/2016 01:18 PM, Sebastian Kiesel wrote:
In this document, in particular in Sec. 4.2.2, "ressource directory"
is used as an abstract term for BitTorrent trackers and similar
entities, i.e., something in the "signaling plane" or the like, which
is not the endpoint of the bulk data transmissions that we we want to
optimize.
The usage of this term is consistent with RFC 5693 (ALTO problem
statement), which defines:
Resource Directory: An entity that is logically separate from the
resource consumer and that assists the resource consumer to
identify a set of resource providers. Some P2P applications refer
to the resource directory as a P2P tracker.
This term coined in the very early days of ALTO is not to be confused
Information Resource Directory (IRD) defined in RFC 7285 (ALTO protocol).
We will add a clarification that the RFC 5693 definition is meant.
OK, I had forgotten about the use of that early meaning!
Yes, that will work; probably just say that "We use the term Resource
Directory as defined in RFC5693, which defines it as an entity that is
logically separate from the resource consumer and that assists the
resource consumer to identify a set of resource providers. This use
of the term is different than the usage ascribed to the term Information
Resource Directory defined in RFC7286. For the remainder of this
document, the term Resource Directory is to be interpreted as defined in
RFC5693."
That will do it.
The other issues (below) seem to be mostly editorial stuff - we will
take care of them.
Sounds good. Thanks a lot. As soon as I see a revision, I can send the
document to IESG.
Cheers,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
