Subject: Re: [p2pi] Is P4P protocol public domain so its functionality can be reviewed?

From: Laird Popkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 22:02:29 -0400 (EDT)

I'm sorry that it's frustrating that the P4P Working Group participants keep answering in that way, but IMO it's a natural outcome of the situation; the P4P Working Group has been working in this area for a year, so anyone coming into the topic is likely to suggest things or raise issues that have already been thought of within the group. The responses aren't meant to make anyone feel excluded, though I can see how it might come across that way.

I agree that publishing more information on the P4P work would help. In addition to Yale's publications, there have been writeups (e.g. http://www.openp4p.net/ that provides an overview, http://www.pandoblog.com/?p=261 that talks about Pando's experiences implementing P4P). I believe that there have been other papers submitted, but which aren't yet published. We should have results from the second round of testing shortly (i.e. ISPs are reviewing the results now, and have to decide what they're comfortable releasing).

The goal of the tests so far wasn't particularly to generate the perfect protocol and implementation, but to perform real-world testing across multiple ISPs to quantify the impact of localizing traffic on various kinds of ISPs (retail, wholesale, DSL, cable, fiber), and to experiment with a variety of optimization strategies. Our assumption has been that the actual protocol used to enable that optimization will change. The field tests have triggered significant evolutions in the protocol, and will probably continue to do so. And assuming that the ALTO WG is formed, I'm sure that what it comes up with will not be simply an adoption of the P4P work so far.

To elaborate on Richard's answer, the P4P protocol is currently only published within the P4P Working Group, which is open to interested parties (with no cost). The idea of limiting access is to allow for rapid evolution early in the process - the intention is that as we work through field tests the protocol and code will mature to the point where they will  be suitable to be shared to the public. I think that we're getting pretty close - Yale is working on approvals, etc. Until then, there's no cost to participating in the P4P WG, so I'd encourage that.

I should clarify that I don't view P4P as a "protocol candidate" at this point, just an example of the kind of optimization that can be provided by ALTO..

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], "Laird Popkin" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, August 2, 2008 6:10:52 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Is P4P protocol public domain so its functionality can be reviewed?

Is the P4P protocol public domain? I'm saying this because every time
somebody suggests a different approach the answer is invariably

"P4P can do this" or "we in P4P were _just_ thinking about this".

Any protocol candidate to IETF standardization needs to be public documented
in a RFC or some public domain site.  We (as in the wide public) need to
understand in-depth how P4P works, so it can be peer reviewed, everybody can
have a opinion about it and not just drink from the cool-aid.

Thanks,

Reinaldo

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

---

From: "Y. R. Yang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 22:29:28 -0400 (EDT)

To add on to Laird's email, let me also first personally apologize for 
keeping on referring to the P4P features. The intention certainly was not 
to claim others' suggestions or to exlcude anyone. The intention was more 
to compare with what we are doing. I will be more careful.

The P4P WG is an open group to promote collaboration on an important 
subject. Its membership has no cost. Yale has intentionally tried to not 
file any IP claim on any part of P4P. To clarify, we are working on to 
release the system to the public domain.

I am coordinating the research subgroup of P4P WG (or call it ISP/P2P 
cooperation WG for those thinking P4P as a single protocol) and will 
definitely appreciate more participants. The P4P WG meeting next Tuesday 
(August 5) will be a good chance for people who are interested to call in, 
and to know more.

I agree with Laird that P4P is not intended to be a protocol candidate. 
The Yale team is from academia and thus focuses more on the research side. 
We have no man power to specify protocols, but will be more than happy to 
contribute and share our experiences. 

Cheers,

Richard

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008, 10:02pm -0400, Laird Popkin wrote:

> I'm sorry that it's frustrating that the P4P Working Group participants 
> keep answering in that way, but IMO it's a natural outcome of the 
> situation; the P4P Working Group has been working in this area for a 
> year, so anyone coming into the topic is likely to suggest things or 
> raise issues that have already been thought of within the group. The 
> responses aren't meant to make anyone feel excluded, though I can see 
> how it might come across that way.
> 
> I agree that publishing more information on the P4P work would help. In 
> addition to Yale's publications, there have been writeups (e.g. 
> http://www.openp4p.net/ that provides an overview, 
> http://www.pandoblog.com/?p=261 that talks about Pando's experiences 
> implementing P4P). I believe that there have been other papers 
> submitted, but which aren't yet published. We should have results from 
> the second round of testing shortly (i.e. ISPs are reviewing the results 
> now, and have to decide what they're comfortable releasing).
> 
> The goal of the tests so far wasn't particularly to generate the perfect 
> protocol and implementation, but to perform real-world testing across 
> multiple ISPs to quantify the impact of localizing traffic on various 
> kinds of ISPs (retail, wholesale, DSL, cable, fiber), and to experiment 
> with a variety of optimization strategies. Our assumption has been that 
> the actual protocol used to enable that optimization will change. The 
> field tests have triggered significant evolutions in the protocol, and 
> will probably continue to do so. And assuming that the ALTO WG is 
> formed, I'm sure that what it comes up with will not be simply an 
> adoption of the P4P work so far.
> 
> To elaborate on Richard's answer, the P4P protocol is currently only 
> published within the P4P Working Group, which is open to interested 
> parties (with no cost). The idea of limiting access is to allow for 
> rapid evolution early in the process - the intention is that as we work 
> through field tests the protocol and code will mature to the point where 
> they will be suitable to be shared to the public. I think that we're 
> getting pretty close - Yale is working on approvals, etc. Until then, 
> there's no cost to participating in the P4P WG, so I'd encourage that.
> 
> I should clarify that I don't view P4P as a "protocol candidate" at this 
> point, just an example of the kind of optimization that can be provided 
> by ALTO..
>

---

From: Stanislav Shalunov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:43:14 -0700

On Aug 2, 2008, at 7:02 PM, Laird Popkin wrote:
> I should clarify that I don't view P4P as a "protocol candidate" at  
> this point, just an example of the kind of optimization that can be  
> provided by ALTO..

This is a useful and productive approach.

--
Stanislav Shalunov

---

From: Reinaldo Penno <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:04:10 -0700

Thanks for the candid email. I appreciate the explanation. In the IETF I can
only speak on my behalf and I'm not sure P4P accepts individuals (as the
IETF does). 

Thanks,

Reinaldo

---

From: Laird Popkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 23:43:05 -0400 (EDT)

Individuals can join the P4P Working Group. You can contact [email-masked] if you're interested.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
To: "Y. R. Yang" <[email-masked]>, "Laird Popkin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Sent: Saturday, August 2, 2008 11:04:10 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: [p2pi] Is P4P protocol public domain so its functionality can be reviewed?

Thanks,

Reinaldo