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.
Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:21 PM
To: Dondeti, Lakshminath
Cc: p2pi(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IESG IESG; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic
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.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani
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