Subject: [alto] Revised interop document

From: Wendy Roome <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:13:36 -0400

Hans & I have updated the Interop document. We revised the routingcost and
hopcount values to represent more reasonable network topologies. The PIDs
and CIDRs remain the same, though.

Also, Hans added very nice interconnect diagrams for the two network maps,
along with link-weights from which you can derive routingcost.

Question for you all -- and especially for our chairpeople: are you
interested in upgrading this to a WG document, with the intent of turning
it into an RFC. In other words, would you like to turn this into an
official test suite for ALTO, rather than being a one-shot deal for
IETF-93? For the seasoned IETFers, does the IETF allow such test suite?

	- Wendy Roome

---

From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:30:42 -0400

Wendy, Hans,

Great work!

I did a search of existing RFCs on interop related documents and found the
following:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?title=interop&pubstatus%5B%5D=Any&pub_date_type=any

One example is http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6984 which reports the
settings and results of an ForCES interop. Given that we are planning to
have more interop features available online for alto, it is a good idea to
have a more formal, updated document.

Just my two cents.
Richard

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Wendy Roome <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email-masked]
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_alto&d=AwICAg&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=4G36iiEVb2m_v-0RnP2gx9KZJjYQgfvrOCE3789JGIA&m=K5rk0XcLXbBrRXybcMNPaZI3KqhO1mAbOlD0Tfmt1Ow&s=RlZyP0eRn0vvpuqUOwJFvML1ueAcVy9gwThnmclGWuU&e=
>

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 17:40:50 -0500

> IETF-93? For the seasoned IETFers, does the IETF allow such test suite?

Wendy, all: my advice to you would be to continue moving the document
ahead, irrespective of whether or not it is upgraded to a WG document.

There are other streams by which an I-D can be made into an RFC.  In my
opinion, the biggest input to the process of a WG moving work ahead to
RFC status is whether or not the draft is valuable to the WG members.
Clearly it appears that the interoperability document meets that
bar, so I would advise you to continue moving the work ahead.  We (i.e.,
the chairs and AD) will get it on some stream towards an RFC so your
efforts are not wasted.

Cheers,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq