Subject: [alto] draft-ietf-alto-protocol-16: introduction section

From: Sebastian Kiesel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:06:05 +0200

Dear all,

as discussed in the virtual interim today, I think the introduction
section should give crossrefs to the problem statement and requirements
RFCs at a prominent place.  Whether to repeat the problem statement
in different words or not, is indeed a question of taste. I don't think
it is neccessary but I dpn't object against the current text.
Cross-checking against the other two RFCs I see no contradictions.

So my proposal is to add something between the section titles of 
1. and 1.1., maybe:

1.  Introduction

The protocol specified in this document provides a solution for
the issues identified in the ALTO problem statement [RFC 5693].
It meets the requirements itemized in the ALTO requirements document
[RFC 6708]. A short, non-normative overview on the problem and the
solution approach is given in the following subsections.

1.1.  Background and Problem Statement

...

------------------------------------------------------------

One more comment about section 1.2.2, which says:

    For example, a peer-to-peer overlay application can use information
    provided by an ALTO Service to avoid selecting peers connected with
    low bandwidth links. 

ALTO and link bandwidth is a mine field - not impossible at all, but
difficult, see the long discussions we had, partly summarized in sec.
8.2.3 of draft-ietf-alto-deployments-06.  Therefore I think it would
be wise to use a less controversial example here, say:

    For example, a peer-to-peer overlay application can use information
    provided by an ALTO Service to avoid selecting peers connected via
    intercontinental (i.e., high-delay) links.

Thanks
Sebastian

---

From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:49:47 -0400

Hi Sebastian,

Thank you for your always excellent comments.

> solution approach is given in the following subsections.
OK. We will adopt it.

> 1.1.  Background and Problem Statement
I like the revision. I may suggest some change to the wording, since some
two points in two continents may be closer to some two intra-continent
points:

For example, a peer-to-peer overlay application can use information
provided by an ALTO Service to avoid selecting peers connected via
high-delay links (e.g., some intercontinental links).

What do you think?

Richard

>
> Thanks
> Sebastian
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
>

---

From: Sebastian Kiesel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:45:56 +0200

Hi Richard,

> high-delay links (e.g., some intercontinental links).

Even better!

Thanks
Sebastian