Lisa, Enrico, Vijay, Thanks for the clarifications. I went through the P2PI mailing list and found some interesting discussions. There are some topics where I don't yet see consensus and some of the discussions still seem open. As Marshall, Sam, Lakshminath and I have pointed out, I don't yet see a consensus on whether the ALTO service is a centralized or distributed one. I also noted some unresolved discussions on the list on the types of information that can be shared as part of this service.
As I've already noted, I do support the work and believe it needs to be done. But, I don't believe we have sorted out all the charter issues yet and focusing on that discussion would help move this forward. Instead, I see a lot of emails reinstating the importance of the work and that it needs to move forward. Well, that's clearly not the point of debate at all here, since I haven't seen anyone say the work is not important. A couple of notes inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:21 PM > To: Dondeti, Lakshminath > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IESG IESG; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic > Optimization (alto) > > Lakshminath and Vidya, > > Vijay, Enrico and Stefano have said what I was going to say > (e.g. below) -- as sponsoring AD for this charter I've been > following the WG discussion, working with the rest of the > IESG, and talking to people to confirm that there's better > consensus on the list, even if there was confusion at the > BOF. This IETF Last Call is also part of confirming whether > there's now consensus. > > It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing > the solution. What would help with the charter, even now, is > for people to write up proposals for the solution -- ideally > in the form of Internet-Drafts. I haven't yet selected > chairs for the WG, so as you can imagine editors and authors > aren't yet selected. It would be most excellent to see some > individual proposals before a committee gets their hands on them :) > The above made me wonder if we are still operating at the IETF :) We repeatedly chastize people for writing charters with a solution in mind. I think it is extremely premature to talk about specific solutions, editors and authors - we have more fundamental discussions to be had on scoping the problem and agreeing to what is going to be solved. I hope we can do that first. Regards, Vidya > Lisa > > > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ... > > > And since the BoF, much has changed to narrow the scope of the > charter down to more manageable pieces as well as establish a > channel with IRTF to move certain aspects of the work there > (as the timeline in my previous email indicated.) > > > Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > > > > > My perception and my understanding of some of > the dissenting opinions > was that some of those need to be worked out > before creating a working group. > > > > But I believe that we have done exactly that: the list has been > busy since Dublin on attempts to move the work forward > in a manner > that is conducive to all participants. > > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
