On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani
<vkg(_at_)alcatel-lucent(_dot_)com>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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf