Subject: Re: [altoext] BOF approval

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:03:58 +0100

On 2/29/12 11:25 PM, David Harrington wrote:
> The BOF session has been approved.
> The BOF name and description has not.
> The IESG and IAB had concerns about how the BOF should be described such
> that it's clear that CDN and DC topics
> are included.  There was concern about potential for "submarine"
> activities in both of those areas.  We discussed this among the
> TSV ADs a bit as to how to describe it, but didn't come to any
> clear conclusion yet.

As far as the BoF description is concerned, since the main goal will be
a) to investigate whether there is a practical need for a high level
mechanism for exporting infrastructural information to distributed
applications in controlled environments (CDN and datacenters in
particular), and b) to understand whether ALTO could be the right tool
for doing that, a more evocative description could be something along
this line:

  Description: A non-WG-forming BoF to investigate infrastructure-
  to-application communications requirements in partially controlled
  environments (e.g. CDN and datacenters) and possible ALTO protocol
  extensions that could potentially satisfy them.

About the name, here are some proposals that have recently circulated:

  ALTO extensions for Content Delivery and Data Centers ({a4cddc|acddc})
  Infrastructure-to-application information exposure ({i2aex|i2a|...})

Alternatively, even if I'm certainly not a fan of the 'C' word, the
marketing guy that lives inside me also suggests:

  Cloud-to-application communications (cloud2app)

Other ideas?

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:31:47 +0000

Hi Enrico, all, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Enrico Marocco
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 10:04 AM
> To: David Harrington
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [altoext] BOF approval
> 

Good take but I would reword it slightly:

  Description: A non-WG-forming BoF to investigate infrastructure-
  to-application information exposure and communications requirements in
  fully controlled (e.g., data centers) or partially controlled environments
  (e.g. CDN) and possible ALTO protocol extensions that could potentially
   satisfy them.

>   ALTO extensions for Content Delivery and Data Centers ({a4cddc|acddc})

This was discussed and did raised the alarm about again being something around data centers without being too clear what it really is. 

>   Infrastructure-to-application information exposure ({i2aex|i2a|...})

I like that one, as it describe what it is, without nailing it down to one or two use case, where there are also other potential use cases, e.g., there was also something about guiding application flows between 2 data centers (vs. within data centers). 

>   Cloud-to-application communications (cloud2app)

Too cloudy ;)

  Martin

[email-masked]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014

---

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 10:57:21 +0100

>   (e.g. CDN) and possible ALTO protocol extensions that could potentially

Better. Also, the last "potentially" (that I inserted in the first
place) sounds redundant, remove that as well.

> I like that one, as it describe what it is, without nailing it down to one or two use case, where there are also other potential use cases, e.g., there was also something about guiding application…

Yep. It doesn't rock nor it'll ever get us any VC money, but among those
on the table is probably the one that best captures the whole thing :-)

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:44:48 -0600

On 03/01/2012 03:31 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
> to-application information exposure and communications requirements
> in fully controlled (e.g., data centers) or partially controlled
> environments (e.g. CDN) and possible ALTO protocol extensions that
> could potentially satisfy them.

Martin: Over time, we have talked about many extensions to ALTO.
To name a few: server-to-server, incremental updates, pub/sub,
multi-cost, etc.

Now ... is the idea that we discuss all (most?) extensions in this BoF
and then figure out where they belong (in ALTO or new WG or nowhere)?

Or are we limiting ourselves to extensions that matter to only to the
issue at hand, namely, exposing information in fully- and partially-
controlled environments?

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/