Vidya, >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. Personally, I can see that there is value in "b): information that peers decide to make available about themselves to other peers for this purpose". Your example below was information about whether a client is on a wireless network. In an earlier thread, I had suggested that clients may want to reveal their "available access bandwidth" in a similar fashion; see <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2pi/current/msg00658.html>. So even as an "ISP person", I can see where you are coming from. But if I am interpreting RFC 2418 correctly <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418>, it is not sufficient to decide if "b)" is a worthy IETF activity, but that there are enough participants working on "b)" for an IETF effort to be successful. Quoting from parts of RFC 2418 section 2.1: "Is there sufficient interest within the IETF in the working group's topic with enough people willing to expend the effort to produce the desired result (e.g., a protocol specification)?" "Is there enough expertise within the IETF in the working group's topic, and are those people interested in contributing in the working group?" "Does a base of interested consumers (end-users) appear to exist for the planned work? Consumer interest can be measured by participation of end-users within the IETF process, as well as by less direct means." You said: >Given that Lisa is looking for solutions, I almost wish I have a solution thought out :) But, I don't. Are you volunteering to work on requirements and/or solutions for "b)"? Would others? (I may be interested and supportive in the future, although right now I am predictably focused on activities related to "a)".) If there isn't a quorum to work on "b)" right now, this could be revisited in the future with a re-charter of ALTO, when such a quorum does exist. If there is a quorum, it would be helpful to hear about it. -- Rich -----Original Message----- From: p2pi-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:p2pi-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Narayanan, Vidya Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 7:48 PM To: Lisa Dusseault; Vijay K. Gurbani Cc: p2pi@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto) 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 > _______________________________________________ p2pi mailing list p2pi@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf