Hi, On 2021-8-24, at 16:07, Qin Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I provided some comments to Martin directly some weeks ago, but I was unable to comment during the internal review due to vacation time. That said, it is fully appropriate for ADs to also raise comments during external review. > > It's not clear to me why this effort would need a chartered WG vs. just a > > mailing list and/or a wiki. ... > The important difference is whether the IETF retains control of an IETF > protocol. That is not actually a factor. The IETF retains change control over all protocols and other work it originates, even if the WG that did so has closed. The IETF is not relinquishing change control when it closes WGs. > >> 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? It depends on how much maintenance work you think would be needed. The only item I see expressed is support for H2 and H3. > >> 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. Would you point me at a discussion where this lack of operational support was brought up by a potential large-scale deployer as a reason to not deploy ALTO? > >> 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. I'll note that the charter actually does contain a bullet to "perform protocol maintenance", which is why I pointed out the overlap? > Also, this is big and important next step to make ALTO more relevant and > useable in current Internet. What particular features of H2 and H3 would make ALTO more relevant and deployable in the current Internet? H2 or H3 do not obsolete H1. > > "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. Actually, no. Specifications cannot (easily) be published without a WG. Discussions, on the other hand, can be had. > 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. Noted. Thanks, Lars
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
