Meeting notes from ALTO WG virtual interim meeting Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 15:00-17:00 GMT About 20 attendees This report has been distilled from the detailed meeting notes taken by Greg Bernstein and Vijay Gurbani Chairs: Enrico Marocco, Vijay Gurbani and Jon Peterson. Agenda ------ Enrico presents the agenda and the status of the WG. No questions nor comments. Requirements ------------ Sebastian Kiesel presents the post-WGLC version of the requirements draft. Since Prague, harmonized reqs document with CDN work to make sure that existing reqs do not harm CDN work. Sebastian went through the details on changes between -08 and -10. Ongoing work with the protocol has resulted in some new requiremnts (REQ Arv10-48) in the requirements draft. This is the only substantial change since -08. Enrico: any comments? None. Suggest two week last call period. No outstanding issues? Sebastian: not to my knowledge. Those who have sent comments please check the latest version. Not planning any further changes. Enrico: any one opposed to the plan? None. Some comments were not incorporated due to conflict with other ideas. But the substantive comments were addressed. ALTO Protocol ------------- Richard Alimi presents the latest version of the protocol document, redesigned in order to shift from a REST-like to a RESTful approach. Sebastian: is the name "resource directory" well known in the context of RESTful design? Richard: good point. If this is an overlap in terminology we can change it. Sebastian: it's already used in ALTO problem statement RFC, would suggest you change it. Richard: will do. Richard goes through the outstanding issues: multiple cost types, PID properties, etc. (slide 11). Next version will try to close some of these open issues. Enrico: would be particularly helpful to get feedback from implementers. Any thoughts you'd like to share? Jan Medved: good version, incorporate the list discussion on errata and bugs in the new version for bakeoff. Specifically the comments from Robert and Ning. Richard: we can fold those in. Okay. Is it reasonable to wait till the beginning of next week then come out with a new version? Enrico: sounds reasonable. Richard: anyone objects to the extensions proposed on the mailing list. If there are no objections we can start, but not for next week. Maybe after interop testing. Emile Stephan: concerning network map, is there a need for a version tag for the cost map? Richard: version tag is not meant to be a timestamp. Network map, cost map use corresponding vtag (version tag). Emile: yes I understand, but don't we need for cost map? Richard: there is a vtag for the cost map, if not one, then there should be. There is not one for endpoint cost service since it does not make use of PIDs. Enrico: would like to thank Richard, Ben, and all the contributors. Interoperability Event in Quebec City ------------------------------------- Vijay provides an introduction of the context and the open questions: when, what, how and how to report. Jan: if you provide public IPs, can you also provide a server with multiple VMs? It would be nice to have actual hardware. Vijay: we can think about that. Jan: if we have a hardware infrastructure we can just leave it up during the meeting. Vijay: don't think we can get a room for the whole week. Jon: if we have these on a server in the IETF NOC we might as well have them on a server back in San Jose. Jan: doesn't really matter where we have the servers. Jon: proposed time (Sunday, 12:00-16:00) is the time when IAB and IESG meet. Vijay: Friday? Richard: bit more tricky. Vijay: how should we do this "bake-offs"? My previous experience was with SIP bakeoffs. The chairs will put out some test cases by Friday. Jon: depends on how many show up. Don't think we need to be as formal with our write up as an IETF draft. Jan: in addition to the test cases, test topology matters. What maps will be exported? Vijay: some sort of canonical maps should do. Richard: interesting to test will be make sure that given a client can discover and access the services. Richard: would be also interesting the testing of a static-file-based service. Enrico: if you have other suggestion send to the list.