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

[stefano previdi <sprevidi at cisco.com>]

On Jul 28, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
> 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.

Proxidor capability of ranking/rating paths is still there and  
functionality
is entirely preserved.

See section 4 of the draft for details.

s.

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> alto at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto