Hi Vidya,
Other usages will be considered as extensions to the charter once
the work for the initial services has been completed.
I think we should delete the sentence above.
While it may seem redundant, I don't see anything wrong with
that. It just means we may have a narrow
Hi Vidya,
Comments inline. (I've only preserved the points I have
comments on. Others are fine with me.)
Thanks,
yushun
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Narayanan, Vidya
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 5:51 PM
-Original
Hi Yushun,
snip
Add: Peer selection is also a problem that has many different
applications in p2p systems - e.g., identifying the best peer to
download content from, identifying the best super peer to
contact in a
system, using the best relay for NAT traversal, identifying
the
Hey, stupid thought...
Could you do proximity based on who's your DNS resolver? Do a few
name lookups: one to register YOU as using YOUR DNS resolver to the
remote coordinator, and one to get who are other peers using the same
resolver?
An ugly, UGLY hack, but it might be interesting to
On Oct 13, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
I believe this work could be useful and would provide an improvement
over existing p2p usage and traffic management.
I also believe that an ALTO WG should be formed and would like to
contribute to a solutions draft.
The current requirements
Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
With respect to process, I think this one takes the cake among
abominations. Having been at the IETF long enough and having
participated in several BoFs, I'm quite familiar with RFC2418 and the
process. Here we have an effort that started with a closed/gated
workshop
October 2008 18:23
To: Narayanan, Vidya
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
(alto)
Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
With respect to process, I think this one takes the cake among
abominations. Having been at the IETF long enough
]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 1:23:09 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
With respect to process, I think this one takes the cake among
abominations. Having been
Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
With respect to process, I think this one takes the cake among
abominations. Having been at the IETF long enough and having
participated in several BoFs, I'm quite familiar with RFC2418 and
the process. Here we have an effort that started with a
closed/gated
Of
Narayanan, Vidya
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 7:48 PM
To: Lisa Dusseault; Vijay K. Gurbani
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
(alto)
Lisa,
There's plenty of work to do in a). My recommendation based
on estimation
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (alto)
Vidya,
This would be a big mistake on our part. b) is not a
research problem
and it is very much related to the same problem being solved in ALTO.
Personally, I can see
-Original Message-
From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 2:32 PM
To: Narayanan, Vidya
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (alto)
Narayanan, Vidya wrote
) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
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
Citing one of the responses from Vijay on Oct 13 For instance, it is not ALTO
that gets to decide which peer is hosting which content and what the
contributions of that peer to the overlay are. However, it is ALTO's job to
provide information to a querying peer allowing it to determine wisely
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Nicholas Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Oct 14, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
FYI, there's at least one more proposal in this space: the Ono stuff from
Northwestern (http://www.aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/projects/Ono.html).
There was a paper
On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Ye WANG wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Nicholas Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Oct 14, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
FYI, there's at least one more proposal in this space: the Ono stuff
from Northwestern
-Original Message-
From: Laird Popkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 10:48 PM
To: Song Haibin
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
(alto)
I'd like to second this, and also make sure that the relationship between
ALTO
Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
Hi Vijay, I am not at all talking about reinventing what BitTorrent
can do or even remotely about any actual p2p application itself. I
am only talking about peer selection. However, I think there is a
critical difference between what I view as contributing to peer
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
Lisa,
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
On 2008-10-11, at 4:27, ext Enrico Marocco wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing the
solution.
This is an interesting opinion. May I translate that to mean that
there
is already a solution in the minds of the people who wrote the
: [EMAIL PROTECTED], IESG IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:29:30 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
Hi Vijay,
Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
communications. In fact, all that is important
Lars Eggert wrote:
FYI, there's at least one more proposal in this space: the Ono stuff
from Northwestern
(http://www.aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/projects/Ono.html). There was a
paper at SIGCOMM this year, and their system has the interesting feature
that it simply freeloads of Akamai's DNS
On Oct 14, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
FYI, there's at least one more proposal in this space: the Ono stuff
from Northwestern (http://www.aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/projects/Ono.html
). There was a paper at SIGCOMM this year, and their system has the
interesting feature that it
Hi Vijay,
Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
communications. In fact, all that is important in this context is
that the overlay acts as a rendezvous for sharing such information.
I think the disconnect we may be having is that you view
ALTO as a peer description protocol; it is not. Other
protocols
-Original Message-
From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 8:03 AM
To: Narayanan, Vidya; Vijay K. Gurbani
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IESG IESG; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (alto)
Hi Vidja
-
From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 8:50 AM
To: Narayanan, Vidya
Cc: IESG IESG; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (alto)
Vidya: Thank you for your response and your time
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Hi Enrico, Vijay,
Thank you for the summary of what transpired after the Dublin
meeting. I appreciate you taking the time.
Lakshminath: No problem. Thank you for your time and effort on
this.
My reading at the BoF was that there were some concerns about this
work
Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
I am surprised to see that ALTO is being proposed for a WG after the
last BoF concluded with no consensus whatsoever. I think a second
BoF is more appropriate than a WG on the topic at this time. That
said, I do see the need for this work, although I have some
, October 10, 2008 3:21:02 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
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
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I support this moving forward. My reading of the room in Dublin was
that there was serious support for this and certainly a critical mass
to move forward.
Marshall: Thank you for your review. More inline.
Some comments in the charter below. This document clearly
Hi Vidja, all,
I believe that the charter is narrow and broad enough to cover the
topic of ALTO, i.e., the charter is not limiting the solution space.
However, when reading your comments, it sounds that you have a very
specific solution in mind which is probably not covered by the
current
two cents ...
- Jan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lakshminath Dondeti
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:10 AM
To: Lisa Dusseault
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IESG IESG; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer
Vidya: Thank you for your response and your time in helping
define the work. More inline.
Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
When we consider ALTO as a distributed service, there may not
necessarily be a host that specifically resolves the ALTO queries.
For instance, consider the case where ALTO is a
: Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (alto)
Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
I am surprised to see that ALTO is being proposed for a WG
after the
last BoF concluded with no consensus whatsoever. I think a
second BoF
is more appropriate than a WG on the topic at this time.
That said, I
do see
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (alto)
On 10/9/2008 6:36 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
On the contrary, I perceived pretty strong agreement at the
BoF that
the ALTO problem, as expressed in the documents and
presentations
Hi Enrico, Vijay,
Thank you for the summary of what transpired after the Dublin meeting.
I appreciate you taking the time.
My reading at the BoF was that there were some concerns about this work
being done in haste without clearly understanding what it is that we
want to do and what it is
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
The minutes (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/minutes/alto.txt) say
this:
+++
Many people agreed that this is important work for the IETF, also some
(less) people hummed against. Hum was inconclusive - some of the no
hums were (in Jon's words)
: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)
Contrary to what some people seem to have interpreted my email to mean, I did
actually say that the work is needed. I was noting the lack of consensus
On Oct 9, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
On the contrary, I perceived pretty strong agreement at the BoF that
the ALTO problem, as expressed in the documents and presentations,
as an important one to solve. There was some disagreement about
solutions, but there seemed to be
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
I agree with the sentiment that this work is too important to not move
forward. While feelings at the BoF were mixed, the work done since the
BoF has been substantial, particularly in the area of narrowing the
charter's scope. The ALTO work as it has been put forth in the current
charter
Marshall makes some excellent points. Some additional thoughts on a few of his
observations.
snip
Some comments in the charter below. This document clearly
needs some more work. As a overall comment, I think it is
premature to discuss ALTO servers and would keep the
charter focused on
@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
Dear Vijay;
On Oct 10, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I support this moving forward. My reading of the room in Dublin was
that there was serious support for this and certainly a critical mass
to move forward.
Marshall: Thank you for your review. More
On 10/10/2008 12:21 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
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
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing the
solution.
This is an interesting opinion. May I translate that to mean that there
is already a solution in the minds of the people who wrote the charter?
Nope. Who has been following the p2pi list
Thanks for the clarification Enrico :).
best,
Lakshminath
On 10/10/2008 6:27 PM, Enrico Marocco wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing the
solution.
This is an interesting opinion. May I translate that to mean that there
is already a
48 matches
Mail list logo
