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 best
next hop for a query based on several criteria (e.g., quality,
reputation, semantic expertise, etc.), etc."
I actually think the proposed addition is somewhat redundant,
and could easily lead into ratholes on what are the metrics
for "best" and whether it is even possible to get the best.
The current charter tries to avoid that by saying
"better-than- random" selection gating mostly on getting
better performance and lowering the costs (as two examples).
Also, what's the "best" depends heavily on whom you ask.
ISP's notions of "best"
may not align with those of the end users.
I am fine with the examples (targets for selections), but
let's try to avoid the debates on "best" again.
I'm fine with that. I agree that "best" is a relative word and causes
confusion at best :)
<snip>
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 scope now, but we
will think about new extensions once we are done.
I actually believe that if we designed the protocols right, we don't need a
recharter to carry other types of information - we can allow registration of
new information types for ALTO beyond the life of the WG.
<snip>
I read the list below somewhat differently. These are not for
relative importance of the information, but kind of a min bar
for what we want to do. While some may need re-wording, the
intent is fine, IMO.
I'm not so sure. Basically, it is a question of what usage these are evaluated
based on. Let's take a couple of examples. Whether the ALTO service can
provide a piece of information is dependent on various factors - some things
are dependent on whether such information is available from other places today
(e.g., topology or ASNs, etc.); I think this set of questions has been written
with that mindset. But, there are others (e.g., quality, reputation, semantic
expertise, etc.) that are totally based on the type of the p2p overlay and
whether clients can provide that information. Similarly, whether some
information is useful to a client is totally contextual to the application as
well.
- Can the ALTO service technically provide that information?
- Is the ALTO service willing to obtain and divulge that
information?
- Is it information that a client will find useful?
- Can a client get that information without excessive privacy
concerns(e.g. by sending large lists of peers)?
- Is it information that a client cannot find easily some
other way?
After these criteria are met, the generality of the data will be
considered for prioritizing standardization work, for example the
number of operators and clients that are likely to be able to
provide or use that particular data.
The above again gets into our evaluation of what is
important based on
what we know today and is limiting.
This point does need some clarification and rewording.
Thanks,
yushun
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf