Subject: [CDNi] Updates to cdni-logging since Berlin

From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:11:50 +0000

Folks,

(speaking as one of the document editors)

This is to report on the progress on cdni-logging since Berlin.

We have issued two updates (-06 and -07) since Berlin (-05). I think we are getting very close to a version that will be ready from the editors viewpoint. The main changes are :

* added/tweaked text reflecting decision to not support real-time logging exchange and not support logging of operational events

* added granularity of occurence (eg per CDNI Logging File) of CDNI directives (as per Kevin's comment)

* clarifications in usage of a few directives and fields (as per Kevin's comment)

* removed s-uri-signing field (since this is going to cdni-signing document as announced by Kent on teh list)

* cleaned-up/added text on what is mandatory/optional to implement by a given CDNI Logging implementation, which is a distinct notion from what is mandatory/optional to actually use in a given deployment.
For example, the "s-cached" field may or may not be used in a given deployment (i.e it is "optional to use"), however a "dCDN-side implementation of the CDNI Logging interface MUST support  the ability to include valid values" for the "s-cached" field (i.e it is "mandatory to implement") .
As discussed in Berlin, the general approach is to select a set of "Mandatory to implement" that will ensure easy and functional practical interoperability, and therefore facilitate deployment (this is as opposed to an alternative approach of selecting the absolute minimum set that will only guarantee the bare minimum interoperability).

* updated the text on use of compression (content encoding) for HTTP transfer of CDNI Logging files (to reflect the corresponding discussion on the list).

* removed the Open Issues section since they are now all addressed

* removed everything related to non-repudiation since this is going to be discussed outside of this document

* added text to clarify that a dCDN needs to be able to serve any logging file that is currently advertised in the subscription feed (as per my note to the list)

* removed former Appendix "A.2.  Considerations on CDNI Logging Applicability" and moved the subset of text that was still relevant into the appropriate part of the document (eg benefits of using W3C like format, benefits of gzip to mitigate scaling issue with ABR logs).

* reworded former Appendix "A.1.  Compliance with cdni-requirements" and presented in Table format to facilitate reading of level of compliance to each and every requirement.

* editorial fixes

Please review and provide comments.

Francois

A diff from 06 to 07 is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cdni-logging-07

Diff from 05 to 06 is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cdni-logging-06