On Oct 9, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
On the contrary, I perceived pretty strong agreement at the BoF that
the ALTO problem, as expressed in the documents and presentations,
as an important one to solve. There was some disagreement about
solutions, but there seemed to be agreement about the general idea
that it would be useful to create an ALTO service that could help
peers optimize their peer selection.
The question of "service" versus "server" in the text is a complete
non-issue, purely a matter of wording. In all of the "ALTO service"
scenarios Vidya describes, there is ultimately a single host that
provides ALTO information, which you might as well call an "ALTO
server".
Since it addresses an important problem, and a problem that many
people agree is important, I support moving forward with this work.
I agree. This is such a pressing problem that blocking on terminology
disputes which can be easily reconciled seems ill-advised. There was
an excellent technical discussion on the list after the last IETF, and
I think we reached at least rough consensus on the important points. I
support moving forward.
Phil
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf