Re: [alto] General comment about draft-penno-alto-protocol-03.txt

["Martin Stiemerling" <Stiemerling at nw.neclab.eu>]

I've just learned in the session that there is actually a loss of functionality in the merger between Proxidor & P4P: the sorting server-based oracle is just gone.

Any reason that this is not documented?

  Martin

stiemerling at nw.neclab.eu

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: alto-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:alto-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Martin Stiemerling
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:56 AM
> To: alto
> Subject: [alto] General comment about draft-penno-alto-protocol-03.txt
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I have a general comment about draft-penno-alto-protocol-03.txt after
> reading it and some more  comments:
> 
> The draft tries to incorporates now all other in parallel existing
> approaches (i.e., P4P, ALTO Info Export, Query/Response, ATTP, and
> Proxidor) but without any major discussion about the usefulness of
> this. All approaches have their pros and cons, and they are quite
> different ways of tackling with ALTO. The discussion about the various
> proposal just started and IMHO it was not clear which of the many does
> actually address the general challenges of ALTO.
> 
> This means (taking some as example):
> - P4P addresses the challenges out of the P4P project, which the
> specific mechanics of Comcast and Pando. I do see the value of P4P, but
> it is one case how you could do it, i.e., I'm not saying that this is
> bad. I like the approach very much. However, I do not (yet) see the
> evidence that P4P works for tracker-less P2P and in other deployments,
> even though most of the people believe this.
> 
> - Proxidor has a different view IMHO to ALTO, i.e., very operator
> driven. By solely integrating this, there might be a loss of
> functionality, e.g., Proxidor works also tracker-less p2p.
> 
> - ATTP was a bit orthogonal to the other approaches and less to do with
> ALTO (even though it is related).
> 
> 
> Second, I couldn't really find out what parts are from the various
> other incorporated protocols, other than this looks as an evolved P4P
> proposal without explicitly saying what the benefits of the merger from
> the various protocols are.
> 
> The protocol claims to "At the same time, it introduces additional
> techniques  to address potential scalability and privacy issues."
> (first paragraph, 2nd sentence of Section 2). However, I'm clueless
> after reading what these techniques are and why they're not discussed
> in the security section (privacy as term pops up in this sentence, and
> nowhere else).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>   Martin
> 
> 
> stiemerling at nw.neclab.eu
> 
> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
> NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
> London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
> 
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto