Re: [p2pi] Charter and problem statement

[Reinaldo Penno <rpenno at juniper.net>]

Hi,

Well, this brings a question if we are here to standardize a client-server
protocol or the data it carries as well.

As we standardize the protocol we need to go through what kind of
information it queries. Are these peers, network masks, weights, etc? How
they are represented? What is mandatory and what is optional? These can be
opaque to the protocol in the wire but certainly not to the application.

Since we are talking about applications and we need to interoperate we need
to define those. At least that was my assumption.

If we are here to just standardize a client-server protocol, there many,
many choices already available, including good ol' HTTP.

So, if caches are just peers, they would be identified as peers or a special
type of peer.

Thanks,

Reinaldo


On 7/15/08 6:41 AM, "stefano previdi" <sprevidi at cisco.com> wrote:

> Laird,
> 
> do you suggest to make the cache entity explicit in the ALTO protocol
> semantic ? 
> 
> Or is it just part of the opaque protocol data the algorithm (not under
> standardization at this point) will work with ?
> 
> I'd vote for the latter...
> 
> thanks.
> 
> s.
> 
>> From: Laird Popkin <laird at pando.com>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:38:15 -0400 (EDT)
>> To: Enrico Marocco <enrico.marocco at telecomitalia.it>
>> Cc: <p2pi at ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [p2pi] Charter and problem statement
>> 
>> Actually, caches will probably want to be included in all ALTO responses so
>> that they are contacted by peers, so that they can determine whether they
>> want
>> to cache the content (and have a data source for the cache if so).
>> 
>> - Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks
>>   mobile: 646/465-0570
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Enrico Marocco" <enrico.marocco at telecomitalia.it>
>> To: "Sebastian Kiesel" <sebastian.kiesel at nw.neclab.eu>
>> Cc: "Laird Popkin" <laird at pando.com>, p2pi at ietf.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:32:18 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
>> Subject: Re: [p2pi] Charter and problem statement
>> 
>> Sebastian Kiesel wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:10:41AM -0400, Laird Popkin wrote:
>>>> For this level of discussion, I agree that caches should simply be
>>>> viewed as a peer in ALTO.
>>> 
>>> What happens if we consider caches and rare content, i.e., content where
>>> the likelyhood is high, that there is a cache miss when we ask for it
>>> and that the cache will never deliver a second copy of it? It might not
>>> be wise to select a cache which is in the "opposite direction" of the
>>> original content, even if connectivity to the cache is "better"
>>> (according to whatever criteria). If the cache tries to fetch the
>>> content the request may pass by the client and go through the same "bad"
>>> link plus twice through the "good" one.
>> 
>> As long as caches are viewed as regular peers, they will be included in
>> ALTO requests/responses only if they actually have the resource the
>> querying peer wants to access.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ciao,
>> Enrico
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2pi mailing list
>> p2pi at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> p2pi mailing list
> p2pi at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi

_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi