Hi all,
Indeed, Amin's speech in sigcomm NAI 2021 inspired me a lot. I hope ALTO can be rechartered to cover more networking use cases, such as our computing aware networking use case and requirements. we really want to investigate how ALTO can be integrated into our work and serve as one of key components in our framework. Yes, we are looking for more help and input on this topic. Regards, Peng Peng Liu | 刘鹏 China Mobile | 移动研究院 mobile phone：13810146105 email: liupeng...@chinamobile.com From: Y. Richard Yang Date: 2021-08-24 22:42 To: Lars Eggert CC: IETF ALTO; alto-cha...@ietf.org; Qin Wu; The IESG Subject: Re: [alto] charter-ietf-alto-04-01 Hi Lars, I saw your comment and have to chime in. I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment: "Overall, I remain unconvinced that there is sufficient work/interest in this space to warrant a chartered WG." I am not sure if you attended the NAI@SIGCOMM'21 Workshop yesterday. There was clearly a huge interest and work in the space. The title of Amin Vahdat's talk is "Application-Defined Networking", as "It now opens the next wave of opportunities toward Application-Defined Networking, Where application efficiency metrics drive network control configuration policy, Integration into compute and storage infrastructure→ job placement, replication, Visibility into distributed systems structure, including Load Balancing, Thread Scheduling, RPCs, RDMA, and Collectives", using the sentences from the keynote. Now, let's go more specific to ALTO and to engineering. The work of Flow Director, in the scope of ALTO, was reported in CoNEXT'19 (https://gsmaragd.github.io/publications/CoNEXT2019/). Luis mentioned ongoing deployment efforts at Telefonica; there is the on-going deployment of ALTO at the Greater Bay Network, which is a large, among the most-advanced networks covering Shenzhen, Hong Kong; there is the ongoing MoWIE work, based on and the need to extend ALTO, by China Mobile and Tencent... I agree that ALTO is far far far from taking over the world, but I have a totally different assessment. If when you say that there is not sufficient work, you mean that *the charter* does not include sufficient work. This is by design and good guidance: the WG substantially limits the scope of the recharter to consolidate the WG in the short term, and there was a huge disappointment from many industry parties on the removing of their work from the charter discussions---not sure if you attended some of the recharter discussions, there was a large amount of proposed work but they were mostly removed. Please see below. On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 9:29 AM Lars Eggert <l...@eggert.org> wrote: Hi, On 2021-8-24, at 16:07, Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com> wrote: > Thank you for reviewing the proposed re-charter of the ALTO working group. > > It's not clear to me why this effort would need a chartered WG vs. just a > > mailing list and/or a wiki. A chartered WG has many benefits. As one example, multiple participants spend huge efforts on the ALTO work and bring "human resources" to IETF; an informal mailing list/wiki will be harder to justify the efforts. I assume that many IETF WGs can also operate mostly as a mailing list/wiki; then the participation can be lower, it will be harder to maintain scope, to meet deadlines. We feel that the WG recharter has wonderful guidance to be focused, to be timely. > >> o Develop operational support tools for ALTO. > > See above. > > I'm not aware of any larger-scale product deployments of ALTO - do some > > exists? See some examples above. > > Otherwise, I question whether operational tools can effectively be developed > > without relevant operational experience. > There is big suggestion that the reason for no larger-scale product > deployment of ALTO is because missing operational support tools. > It is big mistake to make protocol without operational support. > We saw this happen many times with OAM added much later. It make the > protocol hard to use and is bad for operator. Would you point me at a discussion where this lack of operational support was brought up by a potential large-scale deployer as a reason to not deploy ALTO? The issue of lacking operational support was not proposed by academics, but by people from the operator sides, during ALTO meetings, e..g., by Lyle Bertz (T-Mobile), Luis (Telefonica). The main complexity discussed by the Steering Giants report was mostly operational. > >> o Support for modern transport protocols. ALTO only uses the capabilities > >> of > >> HTTP version 1. Since then, the IETF has developed HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. The > >> working group will develop any necessary protocol extensions and guidance > >> to > >> support the use of ALTO over HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. > > > > This seems to fall under the "protocol maintenance" bullet above, so I'm > > not > > clear why this is a separate bullet. As stated above, this could be done in > > TSVWG if anyone cared. > > All work on a protocol after first RFC is “protocol maintenance”. We could > write charter as single bullet “Do protocol maintenance” but that is not > helpful to guide participants and make AD manage WG. I'll note that the charter actually does contain a bullet to "perform protocol maintenance", which is why I pointed out the overlap? > Also, this is big and important next step to make ALTO more relevant and > useable in current Internet. What particular features of H2 and H3 would make ALTO more relevant and deployable in the current Internet? H2 or H3 do not obsolete H1. SSE is an important feature; see Sec. 4.3.3 of aforementioned CoNEXT19. SSE is much cleaner using H2/H3. > > "HTTP ", paragraph 1, comment: > >> o Future use cases. The working group will provide a forum to discuss > >> possible > >> future use cases. > > > > This discussion can be done on a mailing list without the need for a > > chartered > > WG. > > Yes, everything (even QUIC) can be done on mailing list without need for a > WG. Actually, no. Specifications cannot (easily) be published without a WG. Discussions, on the other hand, can be had. > This item was added to draft charter after discussion with AD. The purpose > is to scope this short term re-charter – if WG cannot show meaningful future > use cases then there is no long future for WG. Noted. Thanks, Richard Thanks, Lars _______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
