Hi Vidya, > > > > Other usages will be considered as extensions to the charter once > > > > the work for the initial services has been completed. > > > > > > I think we should delete the sentence above. > > > > While it may seem redundant, I don't see anything wrong with > > that. It just means we may have a narrow scope now, but we > > will think about new extensions once we are done. > > I actually believe that if we designed the protocols right, we don't > need a recharter to carry other types of information - we can allow > registration of new information types for ALTO beyond the life of the > WG.
Agreed in principle, and I don't think anyone on the list would disagree we should design an extensible protocol/solution. The need for such wording is, imo, for the practical purpose of scoping a working group. Any new type of info the wg considers must be carefully evaluated for the impacts and such. The current charter just says we will focus on the protocol and certain types of info. Note that it doesn't say the protocol must NOT be extensible. (If it does, then we should change that.) <...> > > I read the list below somewhat differently. These are not for > > relative importance of the information, but kind of a min bar > > for what we want to do. While some may need re-wording, the > > intent is fine, IMO. > > I'm not so sure. Basically, it is a question of what usage these are > evaluated based on. Let's take a couple of examples. Whether the ALTO > service can provide a piece of information is dependent on various > factors - some things are dependent on whether such information is > available from other places today (e.g., topology or ASNs, etc.); I > think this set of questions has been written with that mindset. But, > there are others (e.g., quality, reputation, semantic expertise, etc.) > that are totally based on the type of the p2p overlay and whether > clients can provide that information. Similarly, whether some > information is useful to a client is totally contextual to the > application as well. Once again, I don't think we are that far apart, and in a sense, what is missing is really a note that the answers to these questions largely depend on the type of info they apply to. Although I still think these are fair questions to ask on the info under consideration. I would totally agree that these need re-wording for clarity. Let's wait for the next round of charter update. :-) Thanks, yushun > > > > - Can the ALTO service technically provide that information? > > > > - Is the ALTO service willing to obtain and divulge that > > > > information? > > > > - Is it information that a client will find useful? > > > > - Can a client get that information without excessive privacy > > > > concerns(e.g. by sending large lists of peers)? > > > > - Is it information that a client cannot find easily some > > > > other way? > > > > > > > > After these criteria are met, the generality of the data will be > > > > considered for prioritizing standardization work, for example the > > > > number of operators and clients that are likely to be able to > > > > provide or use that particular data. > > > > > > The above again gets into our evaluation of what is > > > important based on > > > what we know today and is limiting. > > > > This point does need some clarification and rewording. > > > > Thanks, > > yushun _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
