ALTO WG IETF 104 Prague, Czech Republic March 26, 2019 Notetakers: Sabine Randriamasy Krystof Miziewicz ACRONYMS ACAL ALTO Calendar DL Danny Lachos DC Dawn Chen JS Jan Seedorf MK Mirja Küehlewind PV Path Vector RY Richard Yang SSE Server Sent Events TC Tim Chown UP Unified Properties VG Vijay Gurbani ml: mailing list pls: please ========================================= TUESDAY 26 MARCH ========================================= ----------------------------------------- ALTO WG : 16h10 - 18h10 ----------------------------------------- agenda: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-104-alto/ slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/session/alto session recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LRI0GjpqfA bluesheets: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bluesheets-104-alto-201903261610/ - 17 people in room - 8 people on Meetecho Session chaired by Jan Seedorf ===== WG Chairs (presenting: Jan) ===== WG progress is pretty good. Focus on WG docs to finalize. No new WG items will be added until then. After that, the WG probably needs to re-charter and find new chairs. 6 WG items are remaining. Draft dependencies exist: between PV and UP. Tim chown - JSIC: are there any implementations around ? is there a page listing them? RY: we have an ALTO survey doc with list of deployments and implementations. SR: for minutes takers asks people to articulate when giving their name and affiliation RY: we have regular meetings with many people, core contributors and others interested in re-charter items. Danny: We have a document on implementations. Jan: recommends to and will circulate it on the mailing list. ===== (presenting: Sabine) - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-cost-calendar-11 ===== - current draft is ver 11 – submitted Feb’19 - last IESG review in Dec 2018 on version 9 - revision upon review in version 10, this presentation focuses on ver 10 - substantial changes in section 4.1.2: reorganized to clarify text. - all addressed comments from IESG ware submitted to reviewer. All approved. We wait for ART area review feedback (discuss 1). - Next: we will post revision asap adressing WG Chair review, thank you Vijay, and wait for AD feedback Discussion: - Mirja: thanks for all those edits. We will have to run another IETF last call and put on telechat. I would'nt expect any further comments. One quick question: if you use new JSON format would this update RFC7285? there was a question on mailing list. What was the decision? - Jan: afaiu this doc recommends 8259, is up to the WG to update the core protocol because 7159 wasn't out there at that time. Sabine, did IESG say anything or you introduced on your own? - SR this was recommended by an IESG reviewer. The WG discuss on whether was former WG document tied to other formats than UTF-8. We identified none. - Jan: implementations on 7285 using UTF 8 do not violate the protocol. For implementations using this extension (acal) it is clever to use UTF8 in their core protocol implem. We can stop this discuss because there will be another IESG feedback. We feel we are inline. - Richard: the new JSON format issue is not just applicable to ALTO but also to the other docs such as CDNI. UTF8 format relates to PID name encoding. - Jan: I think we agree. It's not an issue. let's wait for IESG feedback. - Mirja: then to be on the safe side, please add discussion in the document pointing that there are different JSON formats recommended in the ALTO WG documents. Would be good to clarify this and were done. - Jan : Sabine pls note for next revision: the document not only requires new format but also explain that other docs may use other formats. Then we kick it back to IESG. - Mirja: I'll put the new doc on the telechat. Maybe nobody will read so don't expect further comments. - Jan: maybe send back to AD commenting on JSON and ask for feedback. - Sabine: already done. We just wait for B. Campbell's feedback on how we adressed his discuss point. - Jan comment on list by Vijay: everything good, there are just some minor comments. Please adress them and we kick it back to IESG. =====(presenting: Richard) - https://tools.ietf.org/wg/alto/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse/ ===== - draft converged after long work - very important draft. used in ACal. But uses multipart responses, as does PV. - We solved design issue on SSE for multipart responses. - update 1: incremental encoding - 2nd major change: compound resources - Integrated handling of multipart, client ID becomes data-ID - we seek WG feedback next week Discussion - JS: doc is ready now, there were lots of discussions already. I'll issue secnd WGLC for 2 weeks. - Mirja: do we need second review? - JS: no - MK: if we want WGLC now => then better issue in 3 weeks. No review needed but at least we need some mails saying this version is ok. - JS: then we issue WGLC after IETF. - JS: are there any tech questions? then v17 is ready for WGLC =====(presenting: Richard) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-path-vector-05 ===== - PV: converged after long work - depends on SSE - high level topology abstraction - memory refresh issue (PV cost maps are associated to property maps) - Capabilities on "co-flows", PV conveys 2 types of data: costmap + property map. Propmap allows to compute shared network bottleneck. - There was a design pb: how combine 2 info ressources in single message? - design 1: new composite media type. pb = introduces new media type - design 2 send 2 maps in seperate message: pb = snapshot consistency = major problem, see google and amazon. - design3: introduce multipart/related specified in RFC 2387, including 2 messages in a single response. Problem: no possibility to know which resource is cost map and which is network map because mediatype = multipart/related - other pb: SSE only conveys one media-type. How to deal with 2 media types? note: multipart/related media type = e-mail with attachement Solution: add the required “type” param in media type in IRD. E.g. type specifies type of map. Next: seek for WG feedback. Chairs will issue WGLC once feedback is collected Jan: Chairs will issue WGLC once feedback is collected. There is a caveat: Unified Properties + Path Vector coupling. =====https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-unified-props-new-07 ===== =====(presenting: part 1 Sabine, part 2 Richard) Uprop as well converged after long work Current version = 7 Sabine presents problem of ambiguous ressources dependency Unified Properties for ALTO / part 1 - Revisited definitions of properties - presented use cases illustrating the problem on consistent property map dependencies on resources, inspired from an earlier version of the CDNI draft. 2 solutions successively defined. We directly jump to option 2 due to time constraints Richard presents Option 2. Inspired from relational DBs. Property name binded to dependent information resource. paradigm: table + projection = projection No time allocated for questions next: submit final draft end april Jan: pls read the doc? is WGLC dependent on UP? maybe wait until both are ready. End of April good schedule =====(presenting: Richard) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-05 ===== Draft is stable. depends on SSE examples, and on UP. Issues raised by review not addressed yet. many security considerations issue 1: 7285 defines dictionary maps from string -> JSON Value. CDNI is not a "key : value" store format => cannot call map => shall we rename map to table? issue 2: more generic query: suggest query by both footprint and capability instead of either one or the other. Next: address other WG comments, wait for WG feedback on options. Jan: pls send comment on mailing list WG items done: we are happy WG docs make progress. we have 25 mins: 3 indiv pres 8 mins each. Happy to see them but no hums taken until WG docs are done =====(presenting: Danny) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lachosrothenberg-alto-md-e2e-ns-00 ===== "Multi-domain E2E Network Services" - objective: feed next charter - presented to IETF ALTO, SFC WG. - Reference architecture ETSI MANO NFV architecture - Collaboration with Ericsson and Telefonica. Look at more partners. Jan: pls send questions to mailing list. This work is worth being considered if ALTO is rechartered. But we need find chairs first... =====(presenting: Jensen remote) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-alto-multipart-02 ===== "Multipart extension for ALTO" Proposes composite requests and responses. Compatible with SSE. Next: find concrete motivatinf example to show workflow and benefit Jan: please post comments on ml ===== (presenting: Qiao remote) https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-alto-alto-for-multi-domain-applications-use-cases-and-design-requirements-01 ===== "ALTO for Multi-Domain Applications: Use Cases and Design Requirements" - related to 2 drafts - Generic framework for multi-domain apps to use ALTO to improve performance. - Define new ALTO design requirements. - Presntation time was cut due to time constraints. - Next: get from WG and industrial partners ===== WG Chair wrap up =============== Next ALTO meeting in Montreal at IETF 105, chaired by Vijay