Subject: Re: [alto] [apps-discuss] Simple Web Discovery (SWD) Enabling Hosted Deployments

From: "Diego R. Lopez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 22:36:34 +0000

Hi Michael,

Sorry for getting back to this so late: I have been caught on a spiral
of corporate commitments really difficult to get rid of...

We can discuss about those of my statements you don't agree with and those
of your statement I don't agree with in front of a couple of beers along
next meeting.

I think your proposal on an appendix makes sense. Let's go for it and make
things happen.

Be goode,

On 19 Nov 2012, at 17:54 , Scharf, Michael (Michael) wrote:

> Diego, all,
>
> I won't give further pushback, even if I don't agree to quite a number of your statements. Just one further example to explain why SWD won't solve all problems: Even if we replace U-NAPTR by HTTP(S), according to RFC 5986, the ALTO client still needs access to DHCP options, which is yet another non-HTTP(S) interface to care about.
>
> For what it is worth, I am convinced both a DNS-based and a HTTP(S) solution can be engineered, each with pros and cons. Yet, the former variant is much better understood in the IETF, and I fail to see a fundamental benefit of SWD that would compensate this.
>
> In order to move forward, if this helps to sort this issue, I think that we could add a non-normative section to the current draft (or, better, an appendix) that discusses an alternative HTTP-based discovery, in case that such a solution gets widely used in future. It could for instance summarize pros and cons according to this e-mail thread, and leave it up to a future document to standardize this variant (possible, after the mechanism is better worked out in the IETF). It is pretty clear anyway that the current ALTO discovery specification does not address all possible use cases of ALTO (cf. third party discovery).
>
> Any thoughts on that proposal?
>
> Michael

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: [email-masked]
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
-----------------------------------------

________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

---

From: "Diego R. Lopez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 22:38:37 +0000

Hi,

On 19 Nov 2012, at 18:01 , Sebastian Kiesel wrote:

> I propose to add such a discussion to the Deployment Considerations
> document, if we want to have one at all.  The discovery document should
> contain a technical specification as short and as precise as possible.

An appendix is clearly out of the techhnical specification and discusses
an additional aspect. In this case an alternative protocol applicable to
other potential use cases...

Be goode,

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D

e-mail: [email-masked]
Tel:    +34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091

---

From: Sebastian Kiesel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:44:02 +0100

Hi Diego,

> other potential use cases...

For now I still would say that the discussion of a specific use case
without protocol specification (i.e., gap analysis for existing
protocols, things to consider, special parameters to use, etc.) should
go into the deployment considerations document.  We created this
document exactly for that kind of information.  The specification of a
different solution approach should go into a separate draft - at least
for the initial version, maybe it makes sense to merge it into a common
framework later.  Marketing blah blah about the alleged advantages of an
unspecified protocol should go nowhere, we just don't need that.
A single sentence that there are other solution approaches being
considered, with references to other drafts, would nicely fit into the
introduction.

But maybe I will change my mind if we have a clearer idea what
you would like to see in the appendix.  So please propose text.

Thanks
Sebastian