Subject: [alto] Publication Requested: draft-ietf-alto-problem-statement-02

From: Jon Peterson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:41:00 -0700

The ALTO WG requests that the IESG consider publication of 
draft-ietf-alto-problem-statement-02. The document shepherd writeup is 
given below.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

---

Document:
Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement
draft-ietf-alto-problem-statement-02
(Informational)

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Jon Peterson is the document shepherd. I have personally reviewed this
version of the document, and it is ready for forwarding to the IESG
for publication.

    (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The document has had reviews by key WG members as well as TSV
experts. Additionally, being the document that accompanied the
chartering of the ALTO WG, it has received extended review by the
whole IETF community during the WG creation process.

    (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

None.

    (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

None. No IPR disclosures.

    (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

Strong consensus for publishing.

    (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

None.

    (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits? (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Checked with ID nits 2.11.11: no issues nor nits found.

    (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative? Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state? If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document has only Informational references.

    (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document? If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

This document raises no actions for the IANA.

    (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

There is no formal language in the document.

    (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary

Peer-to-peer applications, such as file sharing, real-time
communication, and live and on-demand media streaming use a
significant amount of Internet resources.  Such applications often
transfer large amounts of data in peer-to-peer connections.  However,
they usually have little knowledge of the underlying network topology.
As a result, they may choose their peers randomly with respect to the
underlying network topology or they may choose their peers based on
measurements and statistics that, in many situations, may lead to
suboptimal choices.  This document describes problems related to
improving traffic generated by peer-to-peer applications.  In
particular, this document discusses issues which better-than- random
peer selection based on network-layer information may raise.

          Working Group Summary

This document is the problem statement that accompained the chartering
process of the ALTO WG.

          Document Quality

The document has received extended review by WG members and TSV
experts.