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 describing the ALTO "service." I do not
see consensus at this moment as to a central service solution
versus a distributed solution.
I fully agree. And, I see some discussions almost collapsing the two saying
that eventually, there is a "server" that an ALTO client is talking to. That
is incorrect in a distributed system and pre-supposing that will get us on the
wrong solution path with a narrow view.
<snip>
- Is the ALTO service willing to obtain and divulge that
information?
Do computers have free will ?
More seriously, it seems very odd to assume that a P2P
service will not do something that the owners of the peers
want it to do. In my opinion that drives P2P adoption much
more than the efficiencies of bandwidth sharing.
Absolutely! This also goes back to some of the responses on sharing
uplink/downlink bandwidth information having privacy issues. If a peer is
willing to share a piece of information, that makes that information viable to
be shared. Building distributed systems within the confines of what may
administratively be the best types of information to share doesn't
automatically produce the best systems.
<snip>
Does this mean that congestion is not an issue to consider ?
If the closest peer to me was totally congested and had no
available bandwidth, isn't that something that I would want to know ?
I do think this type of information is needed, but, I suspect ALTO is not the
place for this. Peers may do measurement-based selection that eventually
decides the best ranking of peers and the input from the ALTO service may just
be one data point.
Regards,
Vidya
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf