Subject: [alto] Publication Requested: draft-ietf-alto-reqs-11

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:10:35 +0200

The ALTO WG requests that the IESG consider publication of
draft-ietf-alto-reqs-11. The document shepherd writeup has been inserted
in the datatracker and is reported below.

Enrico

---

Document:
Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Requirements
draft-ietf-alto-reqs-11
(Informational)

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Enrico Marocco is the document shepherd. I have personally reviewed
this version of the document, and it is ready for forwarding to the
IESG for publication.

    (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The document has had reviews by key WG members, as well as by members
of WGs that are considering the work of the alto WG as the basis for
their standardization work (esp. decade and cdni WGs). It has been
intetionally kept alive, refined and reviewed in several iterations,
for quite a long time to track new requirements during the early phase
of the specification work. Since the specs are now generally
considered mature, the WG has expressed consensus to move it toward
publication.

    (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

None.

    (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

None. No IPR disclosures.

    (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

Strong consensus for publishing.

    (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

None.

    (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits? (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Checked with ID nits 2.12.12: no issues nor nits found.

    (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative? Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state? If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The references are split into normative and informative, with the
former only consisting of 2119.

    (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document? If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

This document raises no actions for the IANA.

    (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

There is no formal language in the document.

    (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary

This is a procedural document, listing requirements for the protocol
the ALTO WG is chartered to standardize. The abstract of the draft
provides an accurate summary:

   Many Internet applications are used to access resources, such as
   pieces of information or server processes, which are available in
   several equivalent replicas on different hosts.  This includes, but
   is not limited to, peer-to-peer file sharing applications.  The goal
   of Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) is to provide
   guidance to applications, which have to select one or several hosts
   from a set of candidates, that are able to provide a desired
   resource.  This guidance shall be based on parameters that affect
   performance and efficiency of the data transmission between the
   hosts, e.g., the topological distance.  The ultimate goal is to
   improve performance (or Quality of Experience) in the application
   while reducing resource consumption in the underlying network
   infrastructure.

   This document enumerates requirements for specifying, assessing, or
   comparing protocols and implementations.

          Working Group Summary

This document lists the requirements the protocol the ALTO WG is
chartered to standardize has to satisfy.

          Document Quality

The document has received extended review by WG members, as well as by
contributors of other WGs (esp. decade and cdni) that are considering
the ALTO protocol as the basis for their specification work.