Subject: Re: [CDNi] "CDN Interconnect" BOF in Prague - Request for Mailing List creation

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:17:46 +0100

Hello David,

Coming back to your earlier comments regarding a potential CDNI scope:

On 2 Dec 2010, at 20:49, David Harrington wrote:
> 
> Then let me ask a question:
> Is this ONLY for CSPs (entities that would refer to themselves as service providers)? what about enterprise-internal content delivery servers? what about a P2P entity as a specific type of small CSP? Any reason we don't want to make those part of the consideration?

I agree that CDNI ought to be applicable to any size CDN (small or large) and regardless of the technology underpinning the CDN (e.g. classical CDN techno or P2P).
The Problem Statement can be made more explicit about that.

Regarding the targeted entities running CDNs, it is clear to me we want to cover CDNs run by NSPs and CDNs run by Pure-CDN players.
Regarding other entities (eg Enterprise CDNs), I would say that:
	* we don't want CDNI to preclude applicability to those other entities
	* we may not necessarily want to target/claim covering all requirements for these "other" use cases at day 1.
For example, enterprise CDNs may have additional/different requirements (perhaps in metadata to be distributed) beyond those of NSPs/CDN-players. My recommendation would be that we focus first on the use cases for which requirements are better understood (i.e NSPs/CDN-players).

> 
> And let me make an observation:
> This looks like a rather wide scope. It looks like a number of protocols for different purposes. You might do better to narrow the scope. We had this discussion in decade, and the IESG is having similar discussions regarding clouds, data centers, and home networking. 
> If you want a WG-creation BOF to be successful, keep the scope narrow.

That makes sense.
To start with, one thing we could do is clarify the subset of APIs/Protocols that must to be developed as a step 1 (e.g. distribution metadata exchange) from the subset that may be developed in subsequent steps (e.g. bootstrapping API).

> We can discuss this further on the mailing list. 

I took the liberty of moving this onto the list now that it is active.

Cheers

Francois

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:49:26 -0500

Hi,

I did a little bit of searching for relevant prior work.

There was a Content Distribution Internetworking BOF (cdnp) at ietf49.
There was a Content Distribution Internetworking BOF (cdi) at ietf50
There was a Content Distribution Internetworking BOF (cdi) at ietf51
There was a Content Distribution Internetworking BOF (cdi) at ietf52
Content Distribution Internetworking WG  (cdi) approved
Content Distribution Internetworking WG  (cdi) met at ietf53
RFC3466 A Model for Content Internetworking (CDI)
RFC3568 Known Content Network (CN) Request-Routing Mechanisms
RFC3570 Content Internetworking (CDI) Scenarios
May 2003 WG Closing
    NOTE: Ted Hardie, Area Advisor for the CDI working group, asked
that
    the IESG agree to close this group. Historically, working groups
    have not closed while they have documents active in the RFC
editor's
    queue. This group does have two informational documents still
    in the that queue. Ted asked for a variance from that
    precedent in this case, as the working group has ceased to serve
    as a viable forum for discussion of these issues; any issues
raised
    by the RFC editor will need to be handled by the editors. Further,
    the documents at issue are not protocol standards, as they
    provide a set of scenarios and an abstract model. The IESG agreed
    to the closure of the group, pending a note drafting the reasoning
for
    this being included in the working group closure notice. Ted
agreed
    to draft that note and send it to the Secretariat for the closure
notice.

The CDI WG archives
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/cdn/cdn.2000/threads.html#00180
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/cdn/cdn.2001/threads.html#00180
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/cdn/cdn.2002/threads.html#00180
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/cdn/cdn.2003/threads.html#00180

The datatracker finds these expired drafts:
(possibly available at http://tools.ietf.org/id/)
draft-ietf-cdi-aaa-reqs-01 
draft-meyer-lisp-cons-04 
draft-cain-cdnp-known-req-map-00 
draft-cain-cdnp-known-request-routing-05 
draft-day-cdnp-model-09 
draft-day-cdnp-scenarios-05 
draft-deleuze-cdnp-dnsmap-peer-00 
draft-gilletti-cdnp-aaa-reqs-01 
draft-gilletti-cdnp-accounting-models-01 
draft-green-cdnp-gen-arch-03 
draft-li-ppsp-p2p-cdn-00 
draft-penno-cdnp-nacct-userid-05 

Related work:
http://www.ietf.org/wg/concluded/webi.html Web Intermediaries (webi)
http://www.ietf.org/wg/concluded/wrec.html Web Replication and Caching

RFC3040 Internet Web Replication and Caching Taxonomy (Informational)

David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
[email-masked] (preferred for ietf)
[email-masked]
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)