Subject: Re: [p2pi] Charter and problem statement

From: Stanislav Shalunov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:36:34 -0700

The information conveyed to the client needs to enable the client to find a nearby cache (or three).  Whether this information blob can be called opaque then is a semantic question, but to me, calling it opaque is misleading.

Anything opaque is transparent to something higher up the stack. For example, should we use DNS to find the cache, the information is opaque on DNS layer. It is no longer opaque when it is used.

If it is to allow any client to find the cache, it's not opaque to ALTO.

-----Original Message-----
From: "stefano previdi" <[email-masked]>
To: "Laird Popkin" <[email-masked]>; "Enrico Marocco" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: 7/15/08 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: [p2pi] Charter and problem statement

Laird,

do you suggest to make the cache entity explicit in the ALTO protocol
semantic ? 

Or is it just part of the opaque protocol data the algorithm (not under
standardization at this point) will work with ?

I'd vote for the latter...

_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi

---

From: Laird Popkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:27:02 -0400 (EDT)

Stefano,

   Yes, I am suggesting that ALTO should make cache entities explicit to ALTO clients. And the means of doing so should be standardized so that there is interoperability. It could be expressed in the ALTO specification itself, or via the extension mechanism, of course.

- Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks
  mobile: 646/465-0570

-----Original Message-----
From: "stefano previdi" <[email-masked]>
To: "Laird Popkin" <[email-masked]>; "Enrico Marocco" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: 7/15/08 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: [p2pi] Charter and problem statement

Laird,

---

From: stefano previdi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:03:20 +0200

> From: Stanislav Shalunov <[email-masked]>
> 
> The information conveyed to the client needs to enable the client to find a
> nearby cache (or three).  Whether this information blob can be called opaque
> then is a semantic question, but to me, calling it opaque is misleading.

ok, I agree that "opaque" may be an overstatement...

But I understand that the ALTO protocol shouldn't have a specific state
machinery or behavior because it conveys cache based information.

> Anything opaque is transparent to something higher up the stack. For example,
> should we use DNS to find the cache, the information is opaque on DNS layer.
> It is no longer opaque when it is used.
> 

ok.

s.

---

From: stefano previdi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:08:26 +0200

> From: Laird Popkin <[email-masked]>
> 
> Stefano,
> 
>    Yes, I am suggesting that ALTO should make cache entities explicit to ALTO
> clients. And the means of doing so should be standardized so that there is
> interoperability. It could be expressed in the ALTO specification itself, or
> via the extension mechanism, of course.

now we'll have to explore what kind of cache-specific bits we want to
standardize in the ALTO protocol... I have the feeling is going to be quite
vast...

My point was to keep the ALTO protocol agnostic enough in order to provide a
generic protocol between ALTO providers/consumers. Having some bits in the
request/response related to a cache entity/object, it's fine but I'm not
sure how far we can go without significantly impacting the protocol engine.

s.
 
> To: "stefano previdi" <[email-masked]>, "Laird Popkin" <[email-masked]>,
> "Enrico Marocco" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]

---

From: Laird Popkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:01:23 -0400 (EDT)

We should minimize the amount of caching metadata and logic are exposed in ALTO. As long as ALTO can introduce the p2p cache server to the p2p clients, and tell them that they are caches rather than normal peers, the rest (specific content assignment to specific caches, preferential use of caches over normal peers, etc.) can be negotiated between the p2p clients and the caches using the p2p protocols, without ALTO's involvement.

----- Original Message -----
From: "stefano previdi" <[email-masked]>
To: "Laird Popkin" <[email-masked]>, "Stanislav Shalunov" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], "Enrico Marocco" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 10:08:26 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [p2pi] Charter and problem statement

s.

---

From: "Stas Khirman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:34:40 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Laird Popkin
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 4:01 AM
> To: stefano previdi
> Cc: [email-masked]
> We should minimize the amount of caching metadata and logic are exposed in
> ALTO. As long as ALTO can introduce the p2p cache server to the p2p
> clients, and tell them that they are caches rather than normal peers, the
> rest (specific content assignment to specific caches, preferential use of
> caches over normal peers, etc.) can be negotiated between the p2p clients
> and the caches using the p2p protocols, without ALTO's involvement.
> 
[Stas Khirman] 
Sorry, does " specific content assignment to specific caches... can be
negotiated between the p2p clients and the caches ... without ALTO's
involvement " mean that what p2p client will negotiate what specific cache
server to use without ALTO assistance/recommendation ?

In this case, selected cache may not be an optimal (closes, cheapest, etc )