Hi Sabine, On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:58 AM Sabine Randriamasy (Nokia) < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Med, Qin and ALTO WG > > > > Thanks a lot for initiating this discussion and your options proposal. > > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/wg-materials/blob/main/FutureALTO/alto-direction-of-work.md > > > > I definitely prefer Proposal #3: Support ALTO extensions for the new > industry needs > > > > Thanks a lot to Jordi's insights on this option, that I share. ALTO WG may > also want to work on abstraction of compute metrics and exposure, in > relation to other IETF WG that would look at these matters. As a previous > example, draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-28 (in RFC Ed queue) was done > in coordination with the IPPM WG. > Thank you so much for this positive, collaboration motivation suggestion. Given the detail, it appears Option 3 can be "Support ALTO extensions for the new industry *and other WG* needs", but ultimately it should be driven by industry need and I am hence also fine with just the current title. The important piece by Sabine which I want to single out is "To add another motivation for option 3, it is to be noted that CATS in its current charter is mandated to produce *Informational* documents while ALTO is aiming at standardized compute & network infrastructure exposure." So this can be a good collaboration opportunity as well, in addition to separation into the networking domain and application domain in the computing integration use domain. Richard > > > Kind regards, > > Sabine > > > > *From:* alto <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * > [email protected] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 23, 2023 8:12 AM > *To:* Jordi Ros Giralt <[email protected]>; Qin Wu <[email protected] > > > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [alto] Discussion on the future of ALTO WG > > > > Hi Jordi, all, > > > > Only some logistic comments, not reacting to any expressed views so far: > > > > - We created a page at > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/wg-materials/blob/main/FutureALTO/alto-direction-of-work.md > to track the various proposals (yours is posted there), challenge them, > enrich them, add rebuttals, etc. > - For your logistic comment, we organized on purpose an interim > meeting to offload the IETF#116 agenda and let other I-Ds be presented and > discussed. We scheduled 4 other interims till end of May. We really need > some focus at this stage. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :* Jordi Ros Giralt <[email protected]> > *Envoyé :* jeudi 23 mars 2023 00:13 > *À :* Qin Wu <[email protected]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET < > [email protected]> > *Cc :* [email protected] > *Objet :* Re: [alto] Discussion on the future of ALTO WG > > > > Hi Med, Qin, > > > > Here is my feedback to your analysis below. > > > > I would like to start with a note. The ALTO team has brought (and > continues to bring) a lot of positive energy (development of RFCs, > deployments of the standard at major carriers and new deployments that are > in the making, running code via the development of the open source project > OpenALTO, consistent participation on IETF hackathons usually with multiple > parallel projects/demos, chairing important forums such as SIGCOMM NAI to > incorporate feedback into the WG from the broad spectrum of industry and > academic players, etc.), but it is also true that much of the (even larger) > potential energy of the group has been locked for quite some time as the > group has not been allowed to discuss the new critical topics that we want > to bring from our industry needs. We've all being waiting for this moment, > to be able to discuss the new topics and unlock yet another level of > positive energy into the IETF; and so, it is at the minimum surprising that > the only two options being proposed are either (1) recharter with just a > focus of working on protocol maintenance or (2) close the WG and move our > current work to other WGs or RGs. > > > > I have two broad comments, one on the proposed options and another one on > the logistics to make a proper decision. > > > > On the proposed options: > > ------------------------------------ > > I would like to suggest adding a 3rd proposal, which I believe is what > much of us have been working for, for quite some time: > > > > # Proposal #3: Support ALTO extension for the new industry needs. > > > > ## Rationale: > > - Many I-Ds have been proposed describing the importance of leveraging > ALTO key core architecture to enable the new industry needs, where close > cooperation between the application and the network is critical. > - Allowing these extensions would enable the group to grow and unlock > its true potential, also attracting other industry players that have been > writing ALTO I-Ds, but not fully joined us yet because their proposals were > tagged as being out of the scope for the current charter. > - Lots of positive energy and determination in the WG, as we > understand the potential positive impact (better application performance). > - The proposed work can't be done in other groups, and even if we > tried to do so, it would be improper from an architecture/engineering > standpoint. For instance, trying to move the exposure of compute > information for determining edge services to CATS is not viable since > "Exposure of network and compute conditions to applications is not in the > scope of CATS" [1]. ALTO is inherently/by definition very well > positioned here, since it's designed to expose such kind of > information to the application, that is key to the industry problems we are > working to resolve. > - There is a natural, coherent story for ALTO, which started from P2P > networks, then CDNs, and now it's moving into edge computing, where the > application requires more than ever to cooperate closely to meet stringent > throughput and delay requirements. > - There is a belief that the ALTO WG has been running for a very long > time, but this in general is not a good technical reason to base a > rechartering decision on. From the abovementioned trend standpoint, > keeping ALTO open to provide the IETF a platform for close > application-network integration appears more important than ever before. > > ## Proposed direction of work: > > ·Recharter the WG with a focus on ALTO to cover both maintenance and the > new industry needs (where such needs are currently being discussed in the > ALTO WG internal meetings and mailing list, see also my next comment on > logistics). > > [1] CATS charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cats/ > > > > On the logistics to make a proper decision: > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > This is of course a very important decision, so it's also important that > we as a group provide the right discussion environment to make a proper > decision. For instance, various members of the WG have been working on > various I-Ds to enable a discussion of the proposed new charter items. Yet > during IETF 116, the group is only given 20 minutes to discuss 5 different > I-Ds that are proposed topics for the recharter. This is not sufficient > time to enable a proper discussion on these important topics. Granted, the > ALTO WG meets every week, and we can have further conversations offline, > but the IETF Meetings are a great place to have these discussions in person > and to open them up to people outside the group to collect feedback. I > would encourage providing proper time while we are in Japan to discuss > these topics and continue to discuss them thereafter via interim meetings. > (During 116, getting 30 minutes would be better than 20, getting 40 minutes > would be even better.) > > > > Thanks, > > Jordi > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
