[alto] Past ALTO Interop events

All: Richard recently asked about past ALTO interops; I dug some information out that I thought may be of interest to some of you, if for nothing else than to walk down memory lanes. 1. We have had 3 ALTO interop events: (a) Interop I was held in 2011, IETF 81 in Quebec City; info in chair

[alto] Jabber scribes and note takers

All: At IETF 111, we only have 1 hour. To use the hour most effectively, it will be great if we can get the Jabber scribe and note takers squared away. For those of you wishing to volunteer for the roles (1 Jabber scribe, 2 note takers), please send email to the ALTO chairs. We will be

[alto] All WG items now submitted for publication to IESG

All: Just a quick note --- all the remaining four items are now out of the WG and into the hands of our AD and IESG. On behalf of Jan and Bill, thank you all for getting this work done. Thanks, - vijay ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org

[alto] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-16

Vijay Gurbani has requested publication of draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-16 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the ALTO working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto

[alto] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-14

Vijay Gurbani has requested publication of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-14 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the ALTO working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-path-vector/ ___ alto mailing

[alto] Moving path-vector-14 ahead

Dear Authors: I am moving path-vector ahead based on the revised version (-14) that addresses my comments from the chair reviews [1,2]. Thank you for your time and attention to the draft. With respect to my comment in S6.4 in my chair review [1]: > - S6.4: Why have a mini Security Considerations

[alto] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-17

Vijay Gurbani has requested publication of draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-17 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the ALTO working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new

[alto] Moving unified-props version 17 ahead

Authors: I have reviewed version -17 against my chair reviews of the draft. I will be submitting version -17 to IESG shortly. In the meantime, here are residual comments from version -17 and discussion from the chair review that you can incorporate during AUTH48. - S3.2.1: s/registered at the

Re: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-17.txt

Dear Sabine: Excellent. I will start to wrap up the post-chair review process next week on this and path-vector so they can be sent to IESG. Have a nice weekend. On Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:05 PM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote: > Dear Vijay, > > A new version 17 of the "ALTO

[alto] Shepherd write up for cdni-request-routing-alto

All: The shepherd writeup for CDNI is below. Jan and I will be moving the CNDI draft, path-vector, and unified-props as a cluster. Please let me know if you have any questions on the shepherd writeup. Thanks. 1. Summary Vijay K. Gurbani is the document shepherd for

[alto] Status of chartered WG items

All: Since we have only one hour on Fri for our meeting, I am summarizing the status of the existing chartered items on the list. Hopefully, we can spend no more than 2s on the corresponding chair slides in the meeting tomorrow. draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new and draft-ietf-alto-path-vector

[alto] Jabber monitor and note takers needed

All: ALTO WG meeting is on Fri. Please send an email to the chairs if you would like to volunteer for taking notes and monitoring Jabber. Thanks, - vijay ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

Re: [alto] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-14.txt

Dear Kai: Thank you. I will look at the changes and move the draft ahead. I will try to do so next week, but may spill over into the week after. Thanks. On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 9:20 PM wrote: > Dear all, > > This is the latest revision of the path vector document. In this revision, > we have

Re: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-16.txt

Dear Sabine: Thank you. I will look over the changes and move the draft ahead. I plan to do so next week. - vijay On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 6:49 PM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote: > Dear all, > > This version 16 addresses most of Vijay's review comments part 1 and 2. > We

[alto] Chair review of path-vector-13 (Part 2 of 2)

Dear Authors: This part concludes my chair review of path-vector, an important ALTO extension. Thank you for your work on this document. I hope the comments in this part and the first part help position the document better. Chair review from Section 7 to the end of the document. Part 2 of 2.

[alto] Chair review of path-vector-13 (Part 1 of 2)

Chair review from beginning of document to the end of S6.6. Part 1 of 2. Major: - S4.1, below Figure 2: Note that we do not have "availbw" defined in ALTO as a current cost metric, so it is not a good idea to use it here without qualifying it further. If used as is, it creates confusion. My

[alto] Next steps on unified-properties

Dear Authors: I have submitted my chair review of unified-props [1,2]. Please address the comments, holding any further list discussion as appropriate. As soon as a new version is released, I can move the draft out of the WG. The shepherd writeup was shared with the WG earlier [3]. Thanks, -

[alto] Chair review of unified-props (Part 2 of 2)

Chair review from Section 5 - end (inclusive). Please go through the Major review points, they require some attention. This concludes my review of this document. Overall a well-written document covering a range of important extensions to ALTO. Major: - S5.1.1: "The '.' separator MUST NOT be

[alto] Chair review of unified-props (Part 1 of 2)

All: My apologies for the late start on the chair reviews of the documents I am shepherding. However, I have started the review. Below is the first (of two parts) review of unified-props. This review includes all sections from Abstract to Section 4.7.1 (inclusive). Please let me know if you

Re: [alto] Shepherd writeup for path-vector (draft)

aven’t seen you addressed IDnits errors raised by Vijay below: > > > https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-13.txt > > Please reply to Vijay and confirm whether there are anything missing or > open issues which haven’t been c

[alto] Shepherd writeup for path-vector (draft)

All: I have started the shepherd review of path-vector The review is below. The token is with me to do a chair/shepherd review of the draft. With the semester coming to a close and grading to do, etc., I have reserved the week starting Dec-16 to do the shepherd review of the draft. In the

Re: [alto] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-15.txt

Dear Sabine: thanks. I have the draft on my list of review items for next week. Will get back to you. Thanks. On Thu, Nov 26, 2020, 1:31 PM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote: > Dear Vijay, Jan and Qin > > The new version 15 below fully addresses the review comments and now >

Re: [alto] Review of draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-11

Dear Kai: Thank you. I will perform a chair review of -13 as part of the shepherd writeup. Thanks, - vijay On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 3:47 AM wrote: > Hi Jan, Vijay and Qin, > > > As we discussed in the ALTO meeting today, -12 has addressed the comments > of both Qiao and Luis but the revision

Re: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-14.txt

Please put the table in the end. You can have a forward reference to the table at the beginning of the I-D to let people know. I will like to perform a chair/shepherd review on a version that close to being a final one. Thanks. On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 1:15 PM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia -

[alto] Minute takers and Jabber scribe

All: In preparation of our meeting on Thu, can we kindly have a couple people volunteer for note takers and a Jabber scribe? Please send an email to the chairs to indicate your willingness. Thank you in advance. - vijay ___ alto mailing list

Re: [alto] Any implementations of unified-props, alto-cdni, path-vector

r computing demonstration; but it was for an earlier version of path >> vector without the integration of unified properties. >> >> >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:43 PM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - >> FR/Paris-Saclay) wr

[alto] Input to NomCom

All: Please see the email below from Barbara Stark, 2020 NomCom chair, and provide any input that you can. Thank you. NomCom is considering nominees for AD positions, IETF Chair, IAB, LLC Board, and IETF Trust. We need more input from the community both on specific nominees and on over-arching

[alto] Any implementations of unified-props, alto-cdni, path-vector

All: I am the shepherd for the three drafts identified in the subject. As I prepare the shepherd writeup, I will like to document if there are any implementations of these three drafts that the WG members are aware of. These implementations can be private (a few individuals working on the

Re: [alto] Welcome Qin Wu

Dear Qin: Welcome to the C(hair)-suite :-) Jan and I are looking forward to working with you during IETF 109. Thanks, - vijay On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 3:35 AM Qin Wu wrote: > Hi, Martin, et al : > > Thank for having me. Jan and Vijay, I am happy to come back to ALTO team > and help deliver the

[alto] IETF 109 ALTO draft agenda

All: In IETF 109, we will like to focus on the re-chartering process. To that extent, Jan and I have presented our thoughts on this in [1]. The draft agenda presented here is in line with [1], with the majority of time being devoted to the charter discussion. IETF 109 ALTO agenda. (*Draft*) 30

[alto] IMPORTANT: Suggestions for IETF 109 ALTO meeting

All: We plan to devote most of the time during our IETF 109 slot to charter discussions. Approaching the rechartering discussion in the manner we did during IETF 108 was not very conducive as most of the time was spent in 10 - 16 slide shows. The WG decided that we will hold a virtual interim to

[alto] Status of WGLC reviews --- need one more reviewer for path-vector

All: This is my view of WGLC reviews for unified-props, performance-metrics, and path-vector. I will like the authors of each draft to read the status below and respond. unified-props: Needed one more review, which was provided by Luis. Given the previous review by Danny, this draft now needs a

[alto] Need reviewers for path-vector

All: We have volunteers reviewing unified-props (Luis), performance-metrics (Danny, Kai, and Jensen). We need reviewers for path-vector. I have not seen anyone volunteer yet, please do. (If you have volunteered and I missed it, please send me and Jan an email.) Thanks, - vijay

Re: [alto] WGLC for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12

Dear Kai: Excellent! Thank you. On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 7:30 PM wrote: > Hi Vijay, > > > I can also review the performance metrics document. > > > Best, > > Kai > > > -----Original Messages- > *From:*"Vijay Gurbani" > *Sent Time:*2020-0

Re: [alto] WGLC for draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-12

Dear Danny: Excellent, and thank you for your time on this. We still need one more reviewer for performance-metrics and two for path-vector. All: Please step up. Thank you. On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 8:32 AM Danny Alex Lachos Perez < dlachos...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Jan & Vijay > > I will

Re: [alto] Interested in reviewing unified-props? And other drafts as well

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:48 AM LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO < luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com> wrote: > Hi Vijay, > > > > My apologies for my lack of responsiveness, I have had a number of > subsequent events impeding me to concentrate on this. > > > > My answer is yes, and I take

[alto] Interested in reviewing unified-props? And other drafts as well

Dear Luis: Are you still interested in reviewing unified-props? If so, can you please let Jan and me know as soon as possible? The draft needs an in-depth WGLC review by Oct. 9. All: Since my posting asking for volunteers to review unified-props [1], I have received no offers. Considering that

Re: [alto] Status of alto-unified-props: Not encouraging?

the second review > comments once they will be available. > > > > Thanks, > > Sabine > > > > *From:* alto *On Behalf Of *Vijay Gurbani > *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2020 4:59 PM > *To:* IETF ALTO > *Subject:* [alto] Status of alto-unified-props: Not e

[alto] Status of alto-unified-props: Not encouraging?

All: The unified-properties draft is now done with its WGLC. (In fact, it is well past done. WGLC ended on Aug 7, 2020 [0].) I will be shepherding this draft, however, I see a problem with it. I note that the draft only received one WGLC review , and this was from Danny [1]. My understanding

[alto] Implementation status

All: I want to draw your attention to RFC 7942. It talks about an optional section called "Implementation Considerations". This section lists any known implementation of the protocol and contact people, etc. For some of the ALTO drafts, it may not be a bad idea to include such a section. RFC

[alto] IETF 108 meeting minutes (draft)

All: The meeting minutes are now available at https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/minutes/minutes-108-alto-00 Please let Jan and me know if there are any changes to be made. Thanks. ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org

[alto] ALTO in IEEE Communications Standards Magazine

All: Recently, Jan and I were invited to present the state of ALTO in IEEE Communications Magazine. Please see Page 9 of the June 2020 issue [1] for ALTO-related news. (The content is available without a paywall.) [1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp==9139037 Thanks.

Re: [alto] Note takers and Jabber scribe

ng wrote: > > Hi Vijay, > > > > I'd be glad to be a note taker. > > > > > > Best > > Qiao > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:04 PM Vijay Gurbani > wrote: > > All: If you are willing to take notes, please send Jan and me an email. >

Re: [alto] Note takers and Jabber scribe

Excellent. Thank you! On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:33 PM Qiao Xiang wrote: > Hi Vijay, > > I'd be glad to be a note taker. > > > Best > Qiao > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:04 PM Vijay Gurbani > wrote: > >> All: If you are willing to take notes, please se

[alto] NomCom during IETF 108

All: NomCom will be holding some office hours next week. If you want to stop by and talk with them (just to say Hi, ask about NomCom, ask about being a nominee for the various I* positions, etc.), they woud love to see and hear from you. The date and times (which are also posted on the IETF 108

[alto] ALTO Meeting Details

All: The ALTO WG will meet on Mon at 1410-1550 UTC. Here are some salient links: IETF agenda: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/agenda/ ALTO agenda: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/agenda/agenda-108-alto-00 ALTO WG Meetecho video stream:

[alto] Note takers and Jabber scribe

All: If you are willing to take notes, please send Jan and me an email. We will need two note takers and one Jabber scribe. Thank you. - vijay ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

[alto] Upload slides (PDF)

All: The ALTO session is scheduled on Mon, next week. Please upload the slides through the meeting manager. As before, as long as you have a datatracker account, you should be able to upload the slides by yourself. I would advise to put some sort of version number on the title slide just so you

[alto] Re-chartering guidance

All: As you may have noticed from the ALTO agenda, the last hour of our meeting time is devoted to re-chartering discussion. At issue is how to best use that time? I laid out the two approaches on how to use this time in [1], and subsequent to that, Jan, Martin, and I have had a quick chat on

Re: [alto] Draft IETF 108 ALTO agenda

jay, > > Making a single bulk slot instead of many small presentations for the > discussion makes a lot of sense. It is a good agenda. > > Richard > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:54 AM Vijay Gurbani > wrote: > >> All: The draft agenda is at [1]. Please note that requests for &

[alto] Draft IETF 108 ALTO agenda

All: The draft agenda is at [1]. Please note that requests for presentations of non-WG items were not honored since we will like to provide the bulk of the second hour to the recharter discussion. Please let Jan and me know of any changes to the agenda. Thanks. [1]

Re: [alto] Reminder: Agenda requests due by Tue CoB (US time)

datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-path-vector/ > > Thanks! > > > Best, > > Kai > > > -Original Messages- > *From:*"Vijay Gurbani" > *Sent Time:*2020-07-14 05:33:23 (Tuesday) > *To:* "IETF ALTO" > *Cc:* > *Subject:* [al

Re: [alto] Reminder: Agenda requests due by Tue CoB (US time)

preference/recommendation on type 1 vs type 2? > > Thanks a lot! > > Richard > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 5:35 PM Vijay Gurbani > wrote: > >> All: We have not received any agenda requests so far; if you have sent us >> one, please remind us (and accept our apolog

[alto] Reminder: Agenda requests due by Tue CoB (US time)

All: We have not received any agenda requests so far; if you have sent us one, please remind us (and accept our apologies). Please see [1] for agenda request format. Thanks, - vijay [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/QsicOrADB6gqMhNc3hMrPNxXY18/

[alto] Are we on track to release the I-Ds ...

Dear Authors of path-vector, unified-props, and performance-metrics: Are we on track to release the I-Ds by the end of today so we can start WGLC? Please advise. Thanks, - vijay ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org

Re: [alto] ALTO Meeting Info for Jul. 08, 2020

All: Based on the status that Richard sent out of the three drafts (unified properties, path vector, performance metrics), I will request the authors to indicate to the WG whether these drafts are ready for WGLC when the new versions appear in the IETF archives. Assuming that they are, Jan and I

[alto] Agenda requests for ALTO 108

All: The ALTO session is scheduled on Mon, Jul 27 @ 14:10-15:50 UTC. We have 100 minutes for the session. We will like to structure the session such that approximately half of the time is devoted to re-charter discussions and the remaining half to the status of WG drafts. Accordingly, please

Re: [alto] Question regarding voluntary nature of ALTO clients

Generally, the answer to the question of how a protocol is policed (or enforced) is that it isn't (policed or enforced). There is no "protocol police" that will impose punitive measures on non-behaving clients. Also generally speaking, well-behaving clients will have an automatic incentive to

Re: [alto] Finishing milestones: Status of drafts?

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:01 PM Y. Richard Yang wrote: > Hi Vijay, Jan, > > Let me give some update on the performance metrics. [...] We will upload > an update by the end of next week before the July 13 deadline.Do > Dear Richard: Thanks. Do you think that the draft will be ready for WGLC on

Re: [alto] Finishing milestones: Status of drafts?

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:30 AM Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) wrote: > Dear Vijay, Jan and all, > > > > Here are some updates regarding the Unified Property and Path Vector > drafts. > > > [...] We plan to submit an updated version by July 13th on which we will > request a WGLC.

[alto] Finishing milestones: Status of drafts?

Folks: There are three drafts that we need to progress: path vector, performance metrics, and unified properties. Jan and I will like to get a clear idea from the authors of each of these documents as to where things stand. The WG list has been rather silent on progress on the drafts. For

[alto] Fwd: Nomcom 2020-2021 Second Call For Volunteers

All: Please see the email below from Barbara Stark, the 2020 Nomcom chair. Nomcom is seeking volunteers. If you have never served on a Nomcom before, this is a good time to do so. Thanks. -- Forwarded message - From: STARK, BARBARA H Date: Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:51 PM Subject:

[alto] IETF 108 to occur online

Folks: FYI... Begin forwarded message: *From: *IETF Chair *Subject: **IETF 108 will be an online meeting* *Date: *May 14, 2020 at 4:07:47 PM CDT *To: *IETF-Announce , irtf-annou...@irtf.org, IETF < i...@ietf.org> *Reply-To: *IETF The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the IETF LLC

[alto] Draft minutes for ALTO 107 meeting

All: The draft minutes from Tuesday's alto meeting are in [1]. Also in [1] is the YouTube URL to the WebEx recording. Please let me and Jan know if you have any questions on the minutes. Thanks to Qiao Xiang and Sabine Randriamasy for taking notes. [1]

[alto] Thank you all for a successful meeting

We ran a bit over. Note takers, please send Jan and me your notes. The Etherpad that contains the running commentary (or notes?) from the meeting is at [1] if that will help jog your memory. Thanks, and stay safe. [1]

[alto] Note takers for tomorrow's meeting

All: We need two note takers for tomorrow's meeting. Please send an email to Jan and me if you would like to volunteer. Since the meeting is entirely online and only accessible through WebEx, we can probably monitor the WebEx chat instead of having to monitor an additional Jabber session. So,

[alto] Slides for tomorrow's meeting

All: Please upload the PDF slides for tomorrow's meeting. So far we only have a couple of slides. If you have a datatracker account, you can upload the slides yourself. Thanks, - vijay ___ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org

[alto] Draft agenda updated and PDFs for meeting next week

All: The draft agenda for the ALTO virtual has been updated; please see [1]. Also, please start uploading the PDFs for the meeting. If you have a datatracker account, you should be able to upload the PDF yourself. If you don't please send the PDF to me and Jan. [1]

[alto] WebEx information for ALTO Virtual IETF 107

All: Here is the information for our upcoming ALTO virtual meeting next week. ALTO IETF 107 Virtual Interim Hosted by ALTO Working Group 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Tuesday, Apr 21 2020 Central Time (US & Canada) Meeting Information Meeting link:

Re: [alto] Draft agenda for IETF 107 virtual interim

; > > > > > *From:* alto *On Behalf Of *Vijay Gurbani > *Sent:* Thursday, March 19, 2020 5:37 PM > *To:* IETF ALTO > *Subject:* [alto] Draft agenda for IETF 107 virtual interim > > > > All: The draft agenda for the virtual interim is at > https://datatracker.i

[alto] Draft agenda for IETF 107 virtual interim

All: The draft agenda for the virtual interim is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-interim-2020-alto-01-alto-01/ If anyone sent Jan and me an agenda request that is not reflected in the agenda, please let us know. Thanks, - vijay ___ alto

Re: [alto] ALTO Interim in lieu of IETF 107

votes. The next highest (6 votes) are for 9:00am US Central / 7:00am US Pacific Time and 11:00am US Central / 9:00am US Pacific. Thanks, - vijay *From:* alto *On Behalf Of *Vijay Gurbani > *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2020 6:59 PM > *To:* IETF ALTO > *Subject:* [alto] ALTO Interi

[alto] ALTO Interim in lieu of IETF 107

All: The IESG has been working on coming up with a virtual interim schedule for WGs that would have met in Vancouver. As the original schedule avoided WG and RG conflicts to the maximum extent possible, the virtual interim schedule has been created so that working groups and research groups can

[alto] Agenda requests

All: By now, I am sure everyone knows that the Vancouver meeting has been cancelled. The IESG will provide some clarity soon on when the various working groups can meet virtually. Just so we keep the momentum going, please send me and Jan your agenda requests; so far we have only received two

[alto] IETF 107 in person cancelled

All: You may have heard already, IETF 107 has been cancelled, see [1]. The IESG is working on an alternative all-virtual agenda for the week of March 21-27 with a limited schedule adapted to accommodate the time zones of as many participants as possible. In the meantime, please continue sending

Re: [alto] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-17

Dear Richard: I will suggest a couple of minor modifications: New paragraph: > > The operator should be should be cognizant that the preceding mechanisms >do not address all security risks. In particular, they will not help in >the case of “malicious clients” possessing valid

[alto] WGLC over for CDNI

All: The WGLC [1] for the ALTO CDNI draft is now over. The draft received two reviews [2,3] during the WGLC period. The authors are requested to prepare a revision based on the reviews. The draft can move ahead once the revision is submitted. [1]

[alto] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-19

Vijay Gurbani has requested publication of draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-19 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the ALTO working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse/ ___ alto

Re: [alto] draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse and IDNITS

> version is posted: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse/ > > Thank you so much! > Richard > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:39 PM Vijay Gurbani > wrote: > >> Authors: I am done with the shepherd writeup of this draft, I will post >

[alto] Shepherd writeup for SSE

Folks: The shepherd writeup of SSE is below. As soon as the authors have worked the IDNITS bugs, I will move the draft ahead. In the meantime, if anything in the shepherd's writeup need changing, please let me know. Cheers, - vijay -- 1. Summary The document shepherd is Vijay K. Gurbani.

[alto] draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse and IDNITS

Authors: I am done with the shepherd writeup of this draft, I will post the writeup in a separate email. However, on running IDNITS, I see a number of problems. Two that need fixing are: 1) Please divide the references into INFORMATIVE and NORMATIVE. 2) From idnits: -- Found something which

Re: [alto] RFC 8686 vs. RFC 6708

Congratulations!! We should let Enrico know :-) On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 4:23 PM Sebastian Kiesel wrote: > Dear ALTO WG, > > RFC 8686 "ALTO Cross-Domain Server Discovery" > (was: draft-ietf-alto-xdom-disc-06) has just been published. > > Thanks to all contributors, reviewers, and all others who

[alto] WGLC for draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-09

All: Jan and I will like to start WGLC for draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-alto-09. The WGLC period will run from Mon, Feb 3 2020 to Wed, Feb 19 2020. This email is also being cross-posted to the CDNI working group. We will like to have one WG list member from ALTO and one WG list member from

Re: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-18.txt

Dear Jensen and Richard: Very well. I will look at the modifications and start the roll out next week to move the work ahead. Thank you for attending to this. Cheers, - vijay On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jensen Zhang wrote: > Dear Vijay, Jan and ALTO WG, > > After some good discussions with

Re: [alto] Expiration impending:

Authors: This draft is about to expire. While resurrecting it is easy, I will note that there has not been much discussion on the WGLC review [1] and the chair review [2] from the author team. Could the author team please attend to the reviews as soon as possible? Or let us know when to expect

Re: [alto] Chair review of draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-17

mation about lessons > learned and rolling out ALTO with partners. > > I will file an agenda request for the Vancouver session once asked for on > the list. > > Thanks, > Hans > On 07.01.20 17:35, Vijay Gurbani wrote: > > Dear Hans: Thank you for your email. At this p

Re: [alto] Chair review of draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-17

Dear Hans: Thank you for your email. At this point, I am interested in getting as much information about the implementation of the Internet-Draft as possible in preparation for moving the work ahead in the WG. Certainly, I will be happy to allocate you some agenda time in Vancouver to document

Re: [alto] Chair review of draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-17

Traffic at Scale" [0] > >where > >ALTO is used as a northbound interface in a *real operational > >environment > >at scale*. > >The authors mention the SSE extension (but I am not sure if this > >extension > >was also tested). > > > >Best reg

[alto] Chair review of draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-17

All: Happy new year. In preparation of moving alto-incr-update-sse ahead, I have performed a chair review of the work. Overall, the document is well written, mature, and considers various design tradeoffs. This is fairly mature work, and we should move it out of the WG following the resolution

Re: [alto] End of WGLC for update-sse; need reviews.

Jensen: Excellent. Thank you! On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:04 AM Jensen Zhang wrote: > Hi Vijay and WG, > > I am reviewing the latest revision of SSE. I will post my review by > tonight. > > Thanks, > Jensen > > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 10:01 AM Vijay Gurbani >

[alto] End of WGLC for update-sse; need reviews.

Folks: The WGLC ended for update-sse on Dec 8 [1]. However, we have had absolutely no discussion on the mailing list about this draft after it was posted for WGLC. I am shepherding this draft, and as such, I will need at least one, and perhaps two, members from the WG who are not associated with

[alto] Draft 106 meeting minutes posted

All: The draft meeting minutes from the Singapore IETF have been posted; please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-106-alto/ Please let the chairs know of any discrepancies in the minutes. Also, someone volunteered to review path-vector for the WG, but I could not catch the name.

[alto] IMPORTANT: Please upload slides

All: Only two presenters have uploaded their slides for ALTO. For those who have not, please do so immediately; neither Jan or I are at the IETF and we will not be attending the meeting online either (due to time differences and other commitments). As such, we want to ensure that the initial

Re: [alto] IETF 106 ANI Nov. 20 side meeting slides

Richard: You can hang the slides off the main IETF ALTO meetings material page; just submit them using the datatracker and Jan or I will approve it. That way, they will be archived and available in posterity. Also, if you (or someone who attended the meeting as well) post any notes on the mailing

[alto] Sabine Randriamasy and Borje Ohlman temporary chairs for ALTO on Thu

All: Since neither Jan or I could be in Singapore, Sabine and Borje have volunteered to serve as temporary chairs for the ALTO meeting in IETF 106. Jan and I appreciate them stepping in. To make matters easier, all authors presenting, please upload a PDF version of your slides using the

[alto] Please upload your materials

All: In preparation for our meeting on Thu, please upload your materials in PDF format. If you have a datatracker login, please login and upload your slides. The first time you do so, it will ask the chairs to confirm; once that is done, you will be able to upload incremental versions without

Re: [alto] ALTO Meeting Agenda Update

Jensen, Done. Cheers, - vijay On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:29 PM Jensen Zhang wrote: > Hi Vijay, > > After some discussion with other speakers and WG members, we propose > the following change to the meeting agenda. Could you help to update the > agenda? > > 1550 - 1600 10" Chair slides / Agenda

[alto] New WGLC of draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-17

All: draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse has been in WGLC for a while. Going back to resurrect it's state, I see that -11 was WGLC'd on June 20, 2018 and that WGLC ended on Jul 4, 2018 [1]. After that the draft has changed various times and has been discussed during the Dec 2018 virtual interim [2],

[alto] Draft ALTO WG agenda for Singapore

All: The draft WG agenda for Singapore is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/agenda-106-alto-00 If anyone sent a request that is not reflected in the agenda, please let Jan and me know. Cheers, - vijay ___ alto mailing list

Re: [alto] Reminder: Agenda requests for Singapore IETF

. On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 9:35 AM Vijay Gurbani wrote: > Folks: If you have sent me or Jan an agenda request, then please resend as > I have not received any yet. > > The draft WG agenda is due next week Wed. Please see [1] for the template > to send agenda requests for the Singapore IETF

  1   2   >