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 wrote: > Hi, > > On 2021-8-24, at 16:07, Qin Wu 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
Re: [alto] charter-ietf-alto-04-01
Hi, On 2021-8-24, at 16:07, Qin Wu wrote: > Thank you for reviewing the proposed re-charter of the ALTO working group. > Obviously your opinions are very important as a Transport expert, but it is > disappointing that you have made such a strong objection so late in the > process and after the IESG decided that re-chartering was OK and sent the > charter out for external review. I provided some comments to Martin directly some weeks ago, but I was unable to comment during the internal review due to vacation time. That said, it is fully appropriate for ADs to also raise comments during external review. > > It's not clear to me why this effort would need a chartered WG vs. just a > > mailing list and/or a wiki. ... > The important difference is whether the IETF retains control of an IETF > protocol. That is not actually a factor. The IETF retains change control over all protocols and other work it originates, even if the WG that did so has closed. The IETF is not relinquishing change control when it closes WGs. > >> o Perform protocol maintenance for the existing published protocol. > > > > The default WG for protocol maintenance for TSV-area WGs that close is > > TSVWG. > > Any such maintenance could hence be handled there. > > It is true that this is one job for TSVWG. > We would be worried that ALTO people and drafts would hide other work in TSVWG > TSVWG meet for 2 hours at IETF-111. ALTO meet for 1 hour. Is that good > balance? It depends on how much maintenance work you think would be needed. The only item I see expressed is support for H2 and H3. > >> o Develop operational support tools for ALTO. > > > > I'm not aware of any larger-scale product deployments of ALTO - do some > > exists? > > 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? > >> 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. > > "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, Lars signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
[alto] charter-ietf-alto-04-01
Dear Lars, Thank you for reviewing the proposed re-charter of the ALTO working group. Obviously your opinions are very important as a Transport expert, but it is disappointing that you have made such a strong objection so late in the process and after the IESG decided that re-chartering was OK and sent the charter out for external review. Let me address your points individually. I don't know if we have to convince you on all of them, or just enough to remove your doubt. > Paragraph 4, comment: >> o Collect implementation deployment and experience. It is hoped that ALTO >> practitioners will report their experiences on the mailing list, and the >> working group will track implementation and deployment reports on a wiki or >> in >> an Internet-Draft not expected to be published as an RFC. > > It's not clear to me why this effort would need a chartered WG vs. just a > mailing list and/or a wiki. Your definition of a working group may be different from how other people describe it. A working group seems to be an organised mailing list and a group of people who discuss and advance ideas together. A working group usually has a wiki. The only difference might be the ability to meet during IETF week (any one can have an interim meeting) and the ease to publish the IETF RFC. The important difference is whether the IETF retains control of an IETF protocol. > Paragraph 4, comment: >> o Perform protocol maintenance for the existing published protocol. > > The default WG for protocol maintenance for TSV-area WGs that close is TSVWG. > Any such maintenance could hence be handled there. It is true that this is one job for TSVWG. We would be worried that ALTO people and drafts would hide other work in TSVWG TSVWG meet for 2 hours at IETF-111. ALTO meet for 1 hour. Is that good balance? > Paragraph 4, comment: >> o Develop operational support tools for ALTO. > > I'm not aware of any larger-scale product deployments of ALTO - do some > exists? > 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. > "HTTP ", paragraph 2, comment: >> 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. Also, this is big and important next step to make ALTO more relevant and useable in current Internet. > "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. 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. ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
