Subject: [alto] I-D Action: draft-ietf-alto-protocol-12.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:16:08 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : ALTO Protocol
	Author(s)       : Richard Alimi
                          Reinaldo Penno
                          Y. Richard Yang
	Filename        : draft-ietf-alto-protocol-12.txt
	Pages           : 72
	Date            : 2012-07-11

Abstract:
   Networking applications today already have access to a great amount
   of Inter-Provider network topology information.  For example, views
   of the Internet routing table are easily available at looking glass
   servers and entirely practical to be downloaded by clients.  What is
   missing is knowledge of the underlying network topology from the ISP
   or Content Provider (henceforth referred as Provider) point of view.
   In other words, what a Provider prefers in terms of traffic
   optimization -- and a way to distribute it.

   The ALTO Service provides network information (e.g., basic network
   location structure, preferences of network paths) with the goal of
   modifying network resource consumption patterns while maintaining or
   improving application performance.  The basic information of ALTO is
   based on abstract maps of a network.  These maps provide a simplified
   view, yet enough information about a network for applications to
   effectively utilize them.  Additional services are built on top the
   maps.

   This document describes a protocol implementing the ALTO Service.
   Although the ALTO service would primarily be provided by the network
   operator (e.g., an ISP), content providers and third parties could
   also operate this service.  Applications that could use this service
   are those that have a choice in connection endpoints.  Examples of
   such applications are peer-to-peer (P2P) and content delivery
   networks.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-protocol

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-protocol-12

A diff from previous version is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-protocol-12

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Richard Alimi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:26:51 -0700

I believe this should address all of the WGLC comments received, with
the exception of handling the operations and management requirements.
Those are underway; I posted a new version now to give folks more time
to ensure that the WGLC comments were addressed appropriately.

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:16 AM,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto

---

From: Sabine Randriamasy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:36:56 +0200

Hi Rich,

I just came across one point regarding constraints in input parameters 
in POST requests for the Filtered Cost map and Endpoint Cost Services.

In Section 6.8.2.2.3 Input Parameters (for filtered cost map), object 
ReqFilteredCostMap has a member
'JSONString constraints<0..*>'

In Section 6.8.4.1.3 Input Parameters, object ReqEndpointCostMap has a 
member 'JSONString constraints' and
refers to §6.8.2.2  for the description.
Is there an objection to also have 'JSONString constraints<0..*>' for 
the EP cost service as having several constraints on a cost type may 
also be needed in the ECS ?

Thanks
Sabine

---

From: Richard Alimi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:30:26 -0700

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Sabine Randriamasy
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Rich,
>
> I just came across one point regarding constraints in input parameters in
> POST requests for the Filtered Cost map and Endpoint Cost Services.
>
> Is there an objection to also have 'JSONString constraints<0..*>' for the EP
> cost service as having several constraints on a cost type may also be needed
> in the ECS ?

Thanks for catching this.  This is a mistake in the specification and
I've made the edit in our SVN repository so that fix will be included
when we submit the next version.