Hi, I support option 3. I can see the need to maintain the protocol but also to address new needs from industry. I've just recently started following ALTO WG, but from what I can see both at the WG and outside the IETF, there is interest from the industry to use ALTO and to explore extending it for other use cases.
Besides, IMHO, the energy level of the WG is quite good, and having people from Open ALTO so involved is quite positive (not all WGs have that level of energy at the IETF, unfortunately). My two cents. Thanks, Carlos On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 9:20 PM <roland.sch...@telekom.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > regarding the statements I also want to share my view referring to: > > https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/wg-materials/blob/main/FutureALTO/alto-direction-of-work.md > > > Seeing the enthusiasm of our working activity I think option 3 is that what > the group want. The new ideas that are currently proposed are showing this, > too. > Instead of moving this topic to a group being less interested or start the > creation of a new WG using BOF process, it would be good to check and discuss > the re-chartering with community in the IETF. > > The idea that if the scope is modified, that we will end-up in additional > more interest and contributions is also an important argument. > > The proposed direction > "Recharter the WG with a focus on ALTO to cover both maintenance and the new > industry needs > (where such needs are currently being discussed in the ALTO WG internal > meetings and mailing list)" > is reasonable and supported by me. > > Best Regards > > Roland > > _______________________________________________ > 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
