Subject: [CDNi] Protocol Action: 'CDNI Request Routing Extensions' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-extensions-08.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 07:22:35 -0800

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'CDNI Request Routing Extensions'
  (draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-extensions-08.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Content Delivery Networks Interconnection
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov and Barry Leiba.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-extensions/

Technical Summary

This document defines one new CDNI Metadata object (MI.FallbackTarget)
and one new CDNI Capability object (FCI.RedirectTarget).  The CDNI
Metadata Interface (RFC8006) and CDNI Footprint and Capabilities
Semantics (RFC8008) define generic base objects and registries to allow
extensibility in defining new metadata and capabilities as the need
arises.  We did this knowing that we would not think of everything when
we wrote RFC8006 and RFC8008.  The Open Caching Working Group (OCWG) at
the Streaming Video Alliance (SVA) has adopted the CDNI interfaces as the
basis for their work, and in developing their solution discovered one
additional metadata object and one additional capability object that they
deemed necessary that the CDNI WG did not think of originally.  We asked
them to bring the new objects back to the CDNI WG for standardization and
they did.  This draft is the result of that request.

Working Group Summary

The CDNI WG has reviewed the new objects and agreed that they are
reasonable and useful additions to the CDNI interfaces.  We are
requesting publication as "Proposed Standard" as the object extend the
exiting RFC8006 and RFC8008 proposed standards.

The contents of the document have been extensively reviewed within the
SVA OCWG.  Within the CDNI WG, an SVA OCWG representative presented a
number of topics which received varying levels of discussion.  The two
new objects defined in this document were the least controversial items
presented.

Document Quality

There was not extensive working group discussion, but the document also
didn't need much discussion to garner quick and broad consensus.  The two
objects defined are relatively straight forward and in line with the
purposes and goals of RFC8006 and RFC8008.

Personnel

Kevin Ma is the document shepherd; Barry Leiba is the responsible AD.