Subject: [alto] Work related to ALTO at IETF82

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:56:26 +0100

Hi all,

people involved in ALTO may also want to attend -- physically or
remotely -- a bunch of other meetings next week that have related topics
on the agenda. Here's a non-inclusive list:

- appsawg, 9:00-11:30 on Monday, will have a WG report from ALTO to the
  benefit of the app-review team the ALTO specs will be run on, and a
  discussion about a patch mechanism for JSON (draft-pbryan-json-patch)
  that may be reused in the ALTO protocol for providing incremental
  updates;

- jose WG, 13:00-15:00 on Monday, will have its first meeting. The WG
  is chartered to specify an integrity protection mechanism the ALTO
  protocol may -- and in fact should -- use for information
  redistribution. It will be important to bring the ALTO perspective to
  make sure that relevant use cases are properly addressed;

- cdni WG, 9:00-11:30 on Wednesday, other than being fundamentally
  related, has an ALTO-based proposal being presented
  (draft-seedorf-alto-for-cdni) as a candidate for the request routing
  interface the WG is chartered to specify.

Other sessions that will likely have discussions about ALTO-related
topics are decade, ppsp and sdn (BoF). And certainly a ton that I have
forgotten and that someone will promptly point out on this list :-)

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 03:52:40 +0100

Enrico,

I have a question about the jose WG:
Is this something the ALTO protocol should consider right now?

I see that this makes technically sense, but we would add a dependency 
to jose, if we add this to the ALTO protocol right now.

The public of the ALTO protocol would delayed, until the corresponding 
draft in jose would be published.

Thanks,

   Martin

On 11/11/2011 03:56 PM, Enrico Marocco wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

---

From: Richard Alimi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:31:41 -0800

One way forward is to split out Section 8 (redistribution) of
draft-ietf-alto-protocol into a separate document as an extension, and
only the extension would be blocked on the JOSE WG. Given that this
part was not implemented by anyone at the interop event (to my
knowledge -- please correct me if I'm wrong) event and there is more
than enough in the base protocol to get this working for the large
majority of use cases.

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Martin Stiemerling
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> I see that this makes technically sense, but we would add a dependency to
> jose, if we add this to the ALTO protocol right now.
>
> The public of the ALTO protocol would delayed, until the corresponding draft
> in jose would be published.
>
> Thanks,
>
>  Martin
>

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:44:34 +0000

Rich, all, 

Splitting out the redistribution mechanism out of the base protocol is a good idea, especially if no one implemented and tested it yet. 

This would indeed also give the chance to use the more advanced jose mechanisms. 

  Martin

[email-masked]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Richard Alimi
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:32 AM
> To: Martin Stiemerling
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [alto] Work related to ALTO at IETF82
>

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:59:18 -0600

<As individual>

> knowledge -- please correct me if I'm wrong) event and there is more

Indeed, the test case document did not include any cases to test
for redistribution, and none of the participating server implementations
mentioned this as a supported feature.

> than enough in the base protocol to get this working for the large

I think this is a reasonable path (again, speaking as an individual,
since I have not talked to Enrico about this yet as a co-chair).

I note that there is a now-expired draft on ALTO information re-
distribution [1].  This draft is mentioned in the alto-protocol
document (see second paragraph of S6.1.2).  What is the relationship
of [1] to Section 8 of the alto-protocol document?

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gu-alto-redistribution-03

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: Richard Alimi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:34:55 -0800

Hi Vijay,

> of [1] to Section 8 of the alto-protocol document?

draft-gu-alto-redistribution was originally intended to provide
information about how one might implement redistribution, but
(intentionally) we did not provide actual protocol specifications due
to the variety of P2P protocols in the wild.  The dependency was
non-normative.  If it seems "weird" to link to that from a
standards-track document (i.e. even if we split Section 8 into a
separate document) then that could be removed - it was only intended
to give readers a pointer for how they might get started.

If on the other hand, it makes sense to revive
draft-gu-alto-redistribution and add it as a WG item we could do that
too - back when we were presenting it it seemed like it didn't gain
much traction, but if thinks have changed, then great :)

Thanks,
Rich

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:17:43 -0600

On 11/14/2011 07:34 PM, Richard Alimi wrote:
> (intentionally) we did not provide actual protocol specifications
> due to the variety of P2P protocols in the wild.  The dependency was

Rich: Thanks for the clarification.  More inline.

> draft-gu-alto-redistribution and add it as a WG item we could do
> that too - back when we were presenting it it seemed like it didn't
> gain much traction, but if thinks have changed, then great :)

Pedantically speaking, draft-gu-alto-redistribution was never a
WG item, it was an individual document.  Thus, it can continue
in the same vein until such time that the WG decides how to handle
information redistribution.

Your original proposal of splitting out Section 8 (Redistribution) from
draft-ietf-alto-protocol as an extension, and thus make it normatively
dependent on the outcome of JOSE WG is still sound (again, as an
individual contributor).  It has my "+1" vote.

Assuming that the WG agrees to this, then draft-gu-alto-redistribution
could very well serve as the vessel for moving the redistribution
work ahead.  At some point, the charter will be expanded to include
extensions (the chairs will have to get their act together on this
one :-) ).

I am aware of at least two possible threads of work in progress
(redistribution and multi-cost) that could qualify as extensions to the
base protocol.

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: Richard Alimi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:08:25 -0800

Hi Vijay,

> (redistribution and multi-cost) that could qualify as extensions to the

Sounds perfect to me.  Not quite sure how far we should go in terms of
making draft-go-alto-redistribution normative, but that's a topic for
later :)

Thanks,
Rich