Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Requirements
(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
(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?
(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
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.)
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
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:
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
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.
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.