On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Narayanan, Vidya wrote: > > Peer selection is important to ISPs from a network utilization perspective >> and to peers themselves from a performance perspective. That automatically >> makes peer selection a function of multiple aspects - a) information that >> some service providers may decide to share with the peers, b) information >> that peers decide to make available about themselves to other peers for this >> purpose, and, c) any measurements peers may do on their own. The current >> charter definition (and from what I can tell based on your response below) >> only seems to allow for a). I would agree that c) is out of scope of >> ALTO and something that peers can additionally do. I strongly believe >> that b) should be part of the ALTO work. >> > > I believe that incorporating (b) expands the charter quite a bit, > whereas the consensus since the first BoF was for narrowing > it down. I will also note that the feedback expressed on the > list does not appear to view ALTO as a peer description protocol. > > To be sure, I am not unsympathetic to (b), it seems like a great > problem to solve, it's just that ALTO may not be the best place > to solve this problem. > > In the end, maybe the ADs can decide a way forward. > There's plenty of work to do in a). My recommendation based on estimation of appropriate scope as well as an estimation of the consensus here, would be to do that first -- to have a charter that is scoped to (a). Then the possibilities for (b) include working in the P2P research group, individual submissions, and /or a new BoF/WG. Another option would be a future charter update for ALTO if it's successful and there's consensus for it to be the basis for (b). Lisa
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
