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 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).
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. Letting each
p2p application come up with its own mechanism of doing b) only kills the
interoperability and extensibility. We keep talking about scope creep here,
but, we seem to miss something critical. By not keeping the related problems
together in producing solutions, we are only increasing the number of different
mechanisms that are going to be needed in future to provide this one service -
I cannot understand why that is a good thing.
Without allowing for b), I think information that a) gives you can be more or
less useless in some circumstances. Let me provide some additional context
here. One of the pieces of information that is important to allow wireless
devices to participate in p2p networks is the basic fact that a given node is
wireless. This may place some fundamentally different criteria on path
selection decisions that cannot be deduced simply with topology information.
For any forward looking work we do at the IETF, we must stop designing just for
wired (and stationary) devices. These are the designs that tend to look
horrible when adapted to the wireless (and mobile) world and I seriously hope
that that is not where we are headed with this work.
Best regards,
Vidya
Lisa
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf