IETF 109 ALTO agenda.
30 mins - Chair slides. (This will include the status of each open WG
agenda deliverable from the chair’s point of view, including any high
priority issues that the draft authors must attend to.)

90 mins - Charter discussions. (Please see [1] for structuring the
discussion.)

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/f7y2jh4qjAtZKbyPbk2pLr7wEOU/

==== Current Documents ====

ALTO CDNi: waiting for final shepherd write up and finish; Qin (chair) posted comments to list to CDNi authors on handling normative references; RFC editors/chairs will take care.

Path vector, harmonize editorial revisions from two authors to address similar comments. Authors will address the revisions right after IETF. No need for last WGLC. Qin: Very import
 work, and will have additional comments and will send comments to authors to take a look, clarify the abstracts; cross post to other WGs such as PCEs, cross area review; routing 
directorate for a quick review; after WGLC. AD: request additional reviews at any time. Request cross area reviews during WGLC.

Performance metrics: no technical issues; chair: fix editorial issues; check IPR issues

Unified properties: none technical issues; fix as soon as you can; good to go. Chair/Qin: reuse; align with path vector, e.g., clarifying title/consistent among documents, including Qin 
in the discussions (Qin will post to the list)

AD: chairs update data tracker

After publishing the 4 remaining documents as RFCs, the WG have a milestone of a celebration party.

==== Recharter Discussions ====
AD: 5 proposals are listed, may select only a subset in charter. Jan: maybe prioritize them.

Cellular network information: need laison to 3GPP, key isse is dynamicity. A question is raised and discussions followed on why not direct client feedback, frequency of information 
and kind of information.

General properties extension: Questions on making clear the use cases were raised; path vector was suggested to be a good use case. Suggested to look at Prometheus data model 
on the benfits and use cases.

New transport: Question on binary encoding support, discussion on the key difference between old transport and new transport. Require more HTTP experts to keep an eye on it 
and verify this proposal

Multidomain: The benefit of this proposal is to impove scalability of alto protocol and have a lot of support and discussion in the past on the problem and solution design. A comment 
is that a major issue of multidomain is that it is a challenging, complex setting.

Operation automation: Access to southbound (interface, frequency) was raised and discussed. Discussion on what exact extensions (e.g., service discovery) will be added.

==== Wrapup ====
Cellular and general extension overlap, clearer boundary;
General + automation check overlap to make clear
A comment was made that slight overlap could be a good thing, showing synergy among the items.

Check with other WGs; build synnergy

Moving forward: Chair (Qin) will work with Richard to get a draft to Martin.