Dear Lars, Thank you for reviewing the proposed re-charter of the ALTO working group. Obviously your opinions are very important as a Transport expert, but it is disappointing that you have made such a strong objection so late in the process and after the IESG decided that re-chartering was OK and sent the charter out for external review. Let me address your points individually. I don't know if we have to convince you on all of them, or just enough to remove your doubt.
> Paragraph 4, comment: >> o Collect implementation deployment and experience. It is hoped that ALTO >> practitioners will report their experiences on the mailing list, and the >> working group will track implementation and deployment reports on a wiki or >> in >> an Internet-Draft not expected to be published as an RFC. > > It's not clear to me why this effort would need a chartered WG vs. just a > mailing list and/or a wiki. Your definition of a working group may be different from how other people describe it. A working group seems to be an organised mailing list and a group of people who discuss and advance ideas together. A working group usually has a wiki. The only difference might be the ability to meet during IETF week (any one can have an interim meeting) and the ease to publish the IETF RFC. The important difference is whether the IETF retains control of an IETF protocol. > Paragraph 4, comment: >> o Perform protocol maintenance for the existing published protocol. > > The default WG for protocol maintenance for TSV-area WGs that close is TSVWG. > Any such maintenance could hence be handled there. It is true that this is one job for TSVWG. We would be worried that ALTO people and drafts would hide other work in TSVWG TSVWG meet for 2 hours at IETF-111. ALTO meet for 1 hour. Is that good balance? > Paragraph 4, comment: >> o Develop operational support tools for ALTO. > > I'm not aware of any larger-scale product deployments of ALTO - do some > exists? > Otherwise, I question whether operational tools can effectively be developed > without relevant operational experience. There is big suggestion that the reason for no larger-scale product deployment of ALTO is because missing operational support tools. It is big mistake to make protocol without operational support. We saw this happen many times with OAM added much later. It make the protocol hard to use and is bad for operator. > "HTTP ", paragraph 2, comment: >> o Support for modern transport protocols. ALTO only uses the capabilities of >> HTTP version 1. Since then, the IETF has developed HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. The >> working group will develop any necessary protocol extensions and guidance to >> support the use of ALTO over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. > > This seems to fall under the "protocol maintenance" bullet above, so I'm not > clear why this is a separate bullet. As stated above, this could be done in > TSVWG if anyone cared. All work on a protocol after first RFC is "protocol maintenance". We could write charter as single bullet "Do protocol maintenance" but that is not helpful to guide participants and make AD manage WG. Also, this is big and important next step to make ALTO more relevant and useable in current Internet. > "HTTP ", paragraph 1, comment: >> o Future use cases. The working group will provide a forum to discuss >> possible >> future use cases. > > This discussion can be done on a mailing list without the need for a chartered > WG. Yes, everything (even QUIC) can be done on mailing list without need for a WG. This item was added to draft charter after discussion with AD. The purpose is to scope this short term re-charter - if WG cannot show meaningful future use cases then there is no long future for WG.
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
