From nobody Fri Oct 17 08:56:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3691A1B70 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:56:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PbBo9_3FGshK for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C39FD1A1B87 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:56:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3443; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413561362; x=1414770962; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=uBPugmFN5tKdY6Y1G167FndUU43Jp+mUdQkFD/O0bUI=; b=Ycv4JCYNEhEouHbQNuSFIXSxHTpFYqXuikWG2IGWE1gvFq0ppXN3dPdS y4eODj4kW+83MqyvkXLfA0ixI8uSSwl4ooJ/gBgz6Q8OY6/8Qxp5yhA+r qnG26MyJ/nbF/djs8vWCSRusorzmY21aY6JSHvBSaxp0B62wYWPhXZnQq 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAGM7QVStJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABRCoMOgS/UDIEUFgFyC4QJeRIBgQAnBA6IRM0gAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARyEEYNKiBZcgzSBHgWGLYtTi1mBMINGihCHH4N3gjSBAwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,740,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="87943474" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Oct 2014 15:56:02 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9HFu1LT022503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:56:02 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.68]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:56:01 -0500 From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" To: "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI Thread-Index: AQHP6iLYGpx8XcfS6E60whQ2h/DRag== Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:56:00 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.161.195] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/uIhAXC65slEux9foAF61OThzinA Subject: [CDNi] Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:56:04 -0000 Folks, During the last IETF meeting we discussed dependencies and interactions bet= ween Fottprint & Capabilities advertisement and the other CDNI interfaces (= Logging, Metadata, Redirection, Control): See excerpt from the Toronto CDNI= minutes at the bottom of this message. Two options for handling this were presented in Toronto and a tentative agr= eement for the second option was reached. Since then, a bunch of the protagonists (Kevin, Jan, Jon, Daryl, Francois) = continued discuss this and came up with a third Option which we feel is a b= etter compromise. I have asked Kevin to summarise this third option and its= merits for review and discussion on the list. If no objections are raised = within a week of Kevin describing it, we=92d like to adopt this as the appr= oach going forward. Some of the LI/MI/RI/CI specs are on hold since they ne= ed to be aligned to the final agreed approach. Please keep an eye for Kevin=92s message and raise support or concern promp= tly. Thanks Francois CDNI WG Chair =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D FCI Semantics, draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-03: Kevin M= a ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- - Kevin presented the status update - Problem presented regarding, =93Binary options for Logging/Metadata capab= ility support is unlikely to be sufficient to describe optional modes.=94 (See sl= ide 3 for details) - Jan S: For things we know right now, binary is sufficient. But for future= extensibility, we need to go beyond binary. Don=92t know? - Francois: Why not possible to avoid dependencies on FCI draft to publish = Metadata and Logging drafts? - Kevin: Avoid shadow registries that are for FCI and other CDNI interfaces= (metadata, logging, uri signing) - Jan S: Don=92t need to decide now, WG needs to be aware of the issue and = post comments on ML. Hard to decide right now w/o thinking more about it. - Daryl: I would like to wrap this up ASAP and get Logging draft through - Francois: Is there a way to reference the advertisement objects in other = drafts from FCI registry? - Kevin: This will block semantics draft, but not the FCI draft - Spencer: If you go with binary, and stuck in the future, what would you d= o? - Kevin/Jon: Rewrite the protocol, not non-backwards compatible - Spencer: I don=92t like that. - Jan/Kevin/Jon: More debate =85 - Francois: Can you update FCI semantics draft so other drafts can document= their own FCI advertisement objects? Give guidance to other drafts. - Matt C: My opinion that FCI is done before other drafts. I like option 2. - Cary Fitzgerald: Seems that you need to do the parsing? - Kevin: Duplicate registries are difficult to sync up - Kent: Option #2 seems reasonable - Ray: Likes option #2 - Jan S: Timeframe issue, can FCI semantics be done in time? - Jon P: Need to steal stuff to write up FCI semantics - Jon P.: Next version of FCI semantics draft can be done by mid-Sept - Francois: Now the Logging draft needs to be updated to use the semantics = for advertising of its objects. And there will still be a dependency for pu= blication. - Room rough consensus on #2 to have each draft document its own advertisem= ent objects using the FCI semantics - Chairs will identify a non-author reviewer for next rev of FCI semantics = draft.= From nobody Fri Oct 17 10:30:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D59E1A000F for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:30:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2o88G_Yh-fZd for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53FA31A0030 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:30:38 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-f79916d00000623a-d3-5440f86b8126 Received: from EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.90]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F4.81.25146.B68F0445; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:07:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC006.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.90]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 13:30:32 -0400 From: Kevin Ma J To: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" , "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI Thread-Index: AQHP6iLYGpx8XcfS6E60whQ2h/DRapw0h3dQ Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:30:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPlG72D4cQgwerRSyezv7DanG+7R2j xb8Fp5ksehYsZbQ402DpwOox7X4Lo8eU3xtZPZYs+cnkMePYS3aPHQ3PmQNYo7hsUlJzMstS i/TtErgy5p+ewFbwQq3i/aY/TA2MLfJdjJwcEgImEuvX/WaHsMUkLtxbz9bFyMUhJHCUUeLZ j/eMEM5yRomJXX1gVWwCWhKPv/5lArFFBGIl/i87wAhiMwuUS3SeXc8KYgsLuEjsuL8bqIYD qMZV4tO7fAjTSGLbfj2QChYBVYm+revAKngFvCVu/uECCQsJ2EhMmPmbESTMKWAr0bIlCyTM CHTZ91NrmCD2iEvcejKfCeJiAYkle84zQ9iiEi8f/2OFsJUk5ry+xgxRryOxYPcnNghbW2LZ wtdgcV4BQYmTM5+wTGAUm4Vk7CwkLbOQtMxC0rKAkWUVI0dpcWpZbrqR4SZGYGQdk2Bz3MG4 4JPlIUYBDkYlHt4F7A4hQqyJZcWVuYcYpTlYlMR5NavnBQsJpCeWpGanphakFsUXleakFh9i ZOLglGpgFPPOUrptKeUmJtbjst9ujnbYhPNFuyaktL+NOpuVmcpwWq94+vN12roJb5+eXfHS oObLNu5va7ck16ndn+E+14XnPutLwZ+LDp2YVnH/2Nm4Tp8d9c/57x7TOagotEv+6TGxw8z+ 9nc2qa0UudH/O6tocs2pJO7V6aZGenkTZesNo+WKl236qcRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAGVZsfiNAgAA Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/3GVjUbBNsf2gV8fQUhcVBRID_mU Subject: Re: [CDNi] Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:30:40 -0000 Hi all, The previous question was how to divide up the work of advertisement of c= apabilities (i.e., what logging fields do you support, what metadata/options do you s= upport, etc.). Ideally, capability advertisement would be defined with interfaces themse= lves, however, the FCI specifications are not as mature as other (MI/LI/RI/CI) interface= s. In an effort to allow progress of those interfaces, as we finish defining FCI, we prop= ose the following: 1. The MI/LI/RI/CI drafts remove any place holders for FCI discussion. 2. The FCI semantics draft will define the template for FCI objects. 3. The FCI semantics draft will define a registry for FCI objects. 4. We will publish separate RFCs describing capability advertisement for = MI/LI/RI/CI. The FCI objects defined in these RFCs will be registered in the FCI ob= ject registry created by the FCI semantics draft. We believe this provides the best trade-off between expediency and functi= onality. thanx. -- Kevin J. Ma > -----Original Message----- > From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) [mailto:flefauch@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:56 AM > To: cdni@ietf.org > Cc: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch); Jon Peterson; Jan Seedorf; Kevin Ma = J; > Daryl Malas > Subject: Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI >=20 > Folks, >=20 > During the last IETF meeting we discussed dependencies and interactions > between Fottprint & Capabilities advertisement and the other CDNI interfa= ces > (Logging, Metadata, Redirection, Control): See excerpt from the Toronto C= DNI > minutes at the bottom of this message. >=20 > Two options for handling this were presented in Toronto and a tentative > agreement for the second option was reached. >=20 > Since then, a bunch of the protagonists (Kevin, Jan, Jon, Daryl, Francois= ) > continued discuss this and came up with a third Option which we feel is a > better compromise. I have asked Kevin to summarise this third option and = its > merits for review and discussion on the list. If no objections are raised > within a week of Kevin describing it, we'd like to adopt this as the > approach going forward. Some of the LI/MI/RI/CI specs are on hold since t= hey > need to be aligned to the final agreed approach. >=20 > Please keep an eye for Kevin's message and raise support or concern > promptly. >=20 > Thanks >=20 > Francois > CDNI WG Chair >=20 >=20 >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > FCI Semantics, draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-03: Kevin= Ma > -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- > --- > - Kevin presented the status update > - Problem presented regarding, "Binary options for Logging/Metadata > capability > support is unlikely to be sufficient to describe optional modes." (See sl= ide > 3 for details) > - Jan S: For things we know right now, binary is sufficient. But for futu= re > extensibility, we need to go beyond binary. Don't know? > - Francois: Why not possible to avoid dependencies on FCI draft to publis= h > Metadata and Logging drafts? > - Kevin: Avoid shadow registries that are for FCI and other CDNI interfac= es > (metadata, logging, uri signing) > - Jan S: Don't need to decide now, WG needs to be aware of the issue and > post comments on ML. Hard to decide right now w/o thinking more about it. > - Daryl: I would like to wrap this up ASAP and get Logging draft through > - Francois: Is there a way to reference the advertisement objects in othe= r > drafts from FCI registry? > - Kevin: This will block semantics draft, but not the FCI draft > - Spencer: If you go with binary, and stuck in the future, what would you > do? > - Kevin/Jon: Rewrite the protocol, not non-backwards compatible > - Spencer: I don't like that. > - Jan/Kevin/Jon: More debate ... > - Francois: Can you update FCI semantics draft so other drafts can docume= nt > their own FCI advertisement objects? Give guidance to other drafts. > - Matt C: My opinion that FCI is done before other drafts. I like option = 2. > - Cary Fitzgerald: Seems that you need to do the parsing? > - Kevin: Duplicate registries are difficult to sync up > - Kent: Option #2 seems reasonable > - Ray: Likes option #2 > - Jan S: Timeframe issue, can FCI semantics be done in time? > - Jon P: Need to steal stuff to write up FCI semantics > - Jon P.: Next version of FCI semantics draft can be done by mid-Sept > - Francois: Now the Logging draft needs to be updated to use the semantic= s > for advertising of its objects. And there will still be a dependency for > publication. > - Room rough consensus on #2 to have each draft document its own > advertisement objects using the FCI semantics > - Chairs will identify a non-author reviewer for next rev of FCI semantic= s > draft. From nobody Mon Oct 20 09:35:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F2E1A8993 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:35:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wlQeGYRE4vhX for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5DC91A899D for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5330; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413822307; x=1415031907; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=5x/tHakaPrWV/TvA61vsoL3nqGg5iKbsEKapNFYF1p0=; b=XKGvlgB5d1CF2NtHQVBEzoCfbuInC4OfVR++ESidykh3QaR9ZqMUHDMk ZhBEfffwGelEGVgNVYwUTHF1xdq4SXdA8cY2Qe9GTnsrnZwA6wzY1XJ5V z9KKwecu2Pp6Ng49k1hOuuuSp0rrqs4exuYt+8qO5q7efJ7GS4bgox81z o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsUFAPs2RVStJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABSCoMOgSsE03cCgREWAXILhAIBAQEDAX4HBAIBCBEEAQEoBzIUCQgCBBOINwjGCAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReEEYNLgneFIik6BoMngR4Fhi2LVItZgTCDRooQhxyDd2wBgUeBAwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,757,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="88660631" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2014 16:25:05 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9KGP5Bs009713 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:25:05 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.250]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:25:05 -0500 From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" To: "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI Thread-Index: AQHP6iLYGpx8XcfS6E60whQ2h/DRapw0h3dQgAT84QA= Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:25:04 +0000 Message-ID: <703D416B-BA66-4464-900B-EBE592250FD1@cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.161.197] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <59D48B44ECFBDB4195E3B0182C905C46@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/rj2IU69Cd3VLYXqgAjBVgz6_mCI Subject: Re: [CDNi] Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:35:47 -0000 Hi all, As mentioned before, if no objections are raised by 24 October, we=92ll ado= pt the approach described below by Kevin. Cheers Francois On 17 Oct 2014, at 19:30, Kevin Ma J wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > The previous question was how to divide up the work of advertisement of = capabilities > (i.e., what logging fields do you support, what metadata/options do you = support, etc.). > Ideally, capability advertisement would be defined with interfaces thems= elves, however, > the FCI specifications are not as mature as other (MI/LI/RI/CI) interfac= es. In an effort > to allow progress of those interfaces, as we finish defining FCI, we pro= pose the following: >=20 > 1. The MI/LI/RI/CI drafts remove any place holders for FCI discussion. > 2. The FCI semantics draft will define the template for FCI objects. > 3. The FCI semantics draft will define a registry for FCI objects. > 4. We will publish separate RFCs describing capability advertisement for= MI/LI/RI/CI. > The FCI objects defined in these RFCs will be registered in the FCI o= bject registry > created by the FCI semantics draft. >=20 > We believe this provides the best trade-off between expediency and funct= ionality. >=20 > thanx. >=20 > -- Kevin J. Ma >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) [mailto:flefauch@cisco.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:56 AM >> To: cdni@ietf.org >> Cc: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch); Jon Peterson; Jan Seedorf; Kevin Ma= J; >> Daryl Malas >> Subject: Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI >>=20 >> Folks, >>=20 >> During the last IETF meeting we discussed dependencies and interactions >> between Fottprint & Capabilities advertisement and the other CDNI interf= aces >> (Logging, Metadata, Redirection, Control): See excerpt from the Toronto = CDNI >> minutes at the bottom of this message. >>=20 >> Two options for handling this were presented in Toronto and a tentative >> agreement for the second option was reached. >>=20 >> Since then, a bunch of the protagonists (Kevin, Jan, Jon, Daryl, Francoi= s) >> continued discuss this and came up with a third Option which we feel is = a >> better compromise. I have asked Kevin to summarise this third option and= its >> merits for review and discussion on the list. If no objections are raise= d >> within a week of Kevin describing it, we'd like to adopt this as the >> approach going forward. Some of the LI/MI/RI/CI specs are on hold since = they >> need to be aligned to the final agreed approach. >>=20 >> Please keep an eye for Kevin's message and raise support or concern >> promptly. >>=20 >> Thanks >>=20 >> Francois >> CDNI WG Chair >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> FCI Semantics, draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-03: Kevi= n Ma >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- >> --- >> - Kevin presented the status update >> - Problem presented regarding, "Binary options for Logging/Metadata >> capability >> support is unlikely to be sufficient to describe optional modes." (See s= lide >> 3 for details) >> - Jan S: For things we know right now, binary is sufficient. But for fut= ure >> extensibility, we need to go beyond binary. Don't know? >> - Francois: Why not possible to avoid dependencies on FCI draft to publi= sh >> Metadata and Logging drafts? >> - Kevin: Avoid shadow registries that are for FCI and other CDNI interfa= ces >> (metadata, logging, uri signing) >> - Jan S: Don't need to decide now, WG needs to be aware of the issue and >> post comments on ML. Hard to decide right now w/o thinking more about it= . >> - Daryl: I would like to wrap this up ASAP and get Logging draft through >> - Francois: Is there a way to reference the advertisement objects in oth= er >> drafts from FCI registry? >> - Kevin: This will block semantics draft, but not the FCI draft >> - Spencer: If you go with binary, and stuck in the future, what would yo= u >> do? >> - Kevin/Jon: Rewrite the protocol, not non-backwards compatible >> - Spencer: I don't like that. >> - Jan/Kevin/Jon: More debate ... >> - Francois: Can you update FCI semantics draft so other drafts can docum= ent >> their own FCI advertisement objects? Give guidance to other drafts. >> - Matt C: My opinion that FCI is done before other drafts. I like option= 2. >> - Cary Fitzgerald: Seems that you need to do the parsing? >> - Kevin: Duplicate registries are difficult to sync up >> - Kent: Option #2 seems reasonable >> - Ray: Likes option #2 >> - Jan S: Timeframe issue, can FCI semantics be done in time? >> - Jon P: Need to steal stuff to write up FCI semantics >> - Jon P.: Next version of FCI semantics draft can be done by mid-Sept >> - Francois: Now the Logging draft needs to be updated to use the semanti= cs >> for advertising of its objects. And there will still be a dependency for >> publication. >> - Room rough consensus on #2 to have each draft document its own >> advertisement objects using the FCI semantics >> - Chairs will identify a non-author reviewer for next rev of FCI semanti= cs >> draft. From nobody Mon Oct 20 09:43:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E789C1A1ADA for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:43:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ou8x3q-SlSj8 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:43:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 567241A8BB7 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 09:30:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5472; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1413822604; x=1415032204; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:mime-version; bh=TeGHGy8hY4fA0pAXSe3KIhV3EE36kLCxMosiiN9cnfU=; b=Js1abn/wptPuXuH8aLP+v97LjL4bqaKAxFVjcYQQJZ6fnxijzmsjBOoA N9Kau7S0s9nKfRjWpTxX5qWcR05NIC9+xnCOlLKSjjtT6mfAuCuv55VCU elkqvnmETpZgEfmHO4LmdPCv/L8kcIL9DIqqF0GoSKerzZ+RCUnhDrKoQ E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AskFAGE4RVStJA2H/2dsb2JhbABcgw5TWATMIAEJh00CgREWAXILhAIBAQEEgQkCARkDAQIoBzIUCQgCBBMJiDYNxXoBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXjQ6DMg0KB4IwUySBHgWPZYIchEaHE4Ewg0aNK4QBgg6BaWwBgUeBAwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,757,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="88661937" Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2014 16:29:53 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9KGTr4C024450 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:29:53 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.250]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:29:53 -0500 From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" To: "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: IETF 91 CDNI WG Meeting on MONDAY, November 10, 13:00 Thread-Index: AQHP7IMTSFFQQszQ8E2GeAdO8IOnzg== Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:29:52 +0000 Message-ID: <201630CD-9E6B-412D-BA5F-2141A4AC1A16@cisco.com> References: <20141018002155.6771.93139.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.161.197] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_201630CD9E6B412DBA5F2141A4AC1A16ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/wapeVIXrqA_7od9_eeRkK3tG6sM Subject: [CDNi] IETF 91 CDNI WG Meeting on MONDAY, November 10, 13:00 X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:43:28 -0000 --_000_201630CD9E6B412DBA5F2141A4AC1A16ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks, The final IETF 91 agenda has been published. Please note that the CDNI WG m= eeting will take place: * MONDAY, November 10, 2014 * 13:00 - 15:00 * Room Coral 1 See you there Francois Begin forwarded message: From: IETF Agenda > Subject: IETF 91 Final Agenda Date: 18 October 2014 02:21:55 CEST To: Working Group Chairs > Cc: > Reply-To: IETF Agenda > Hello Everyone! The final agenda is now available. Please take a moment to note the time of= your session(s) and meeting room(s). At this point only Area Directors can= submit changes in the form of a swap to agenda@ietf.org. Please let me know if you have any questions. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda.html https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda.txt While this is considered the final agenda for printing, changes may be made= to the agenda up until and during the meeting. Updates will be reflected o= n the web version of the agenda. Information regarding the 91st IETF meeting in Honolulu, HI can be found he= re: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/91/index.html Thank you! Stephanie McCammon IETF Secretariat --_000_201630CD9E6B412DBA5F2141A4AC1A16ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2A2ACC61852DA146B81656941CCD8F5D@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Folks,

The final IETF 91 agenda has been published. Please note that the CDNI= WG meeting will take place:
* = ;MONDAY, November 10, 2014
* 13:0= 0 - 15:00
* Room= Coral 1

See you there

Francois

Begin forwarded message:

From:= IETF Agenda <agenda@ietf.org>
Subje= ct: IETF 91 Final Agenda=
Date:= 18 October 2014 02:21:= 55 CEST
To: <= /b>Working Group Chairs <= ;wgchairs@ietf.org>
Cc: <= /b><irsg@irtf.org>
Reply= -To: IETF Agenda <agenda@ietf.org>


Hello Everyone!

The final agenda is now available. Please take a moment to note the time of= your session(s) and meeting room(s). At this point only Area Directors can= submit changes in the form of a swap to agenda@ietf.org. Please let me know = if you have any questions.

https://dat= atracker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda.html
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/91/agenda.txt

While this is considered the final agenda for printing, changes may be made= to the agenda up until and during the meeting. Updates will be reflected o= n the web version of the agenda.

Information regarding the 91st IETF meeting in Honolulu, HI can be found he= re: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/91/index.html

Thank you!

Stephanie McCammon
IETF Secretariat


--_000_201630CD9E6B412DBA5F2141A4AC1A16ciscocom_-- From nobody Wed Oct 22 06:53:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0CB1A8F45 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 06:53:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.227 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qrNtbpIMAAj4 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 06:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com (ondar.cablelabs.com [192.160.73.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC3231A9245 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 06:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kyzyl.cablelabs.com (kyzyl [10.253.0.7]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9MDrYda011960 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:53:34 -0600 Received: from exchange.cablelabs.com (10.5.0.19) by kyzyl.cablelabs.com (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com); Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:53:33 -0600 (MDT) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com) Received: from EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com ([::1]) by EXCHANGE.cablelabs.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:53:33 -0600 From: Daryl Malas To: "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CDNi] Call for Agenda Items - IETF 91 CDNI Thread-Index: AQHP7f+RId5E6xu7FkSXrk2Tpe3ZfA== Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:53:33 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.5.141003 x-originating-ip: [10.5.0.27] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D06D837B231DEdmalascablelabscom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/kSUBYqvpiIA3AzgmNBr0T8x8A8c Subject: [CDNi] Call for Agenda Items - IETF 91 CDNI X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:53:36 -0000 --_000_D06D837B231DEdmalascablelabscom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Aloha, The CDNI WG will be meeting at the IETF in Honolulu in a two hour time slot= on Monday, November 10th, from 13:00 =96 15:00. It=92s time to =93wow=94 u= s with all of the progress everyone has made since Toronto. :-) We are in t= he process of putting together the agenda, so please send Francois and I yo= ur requests for slots detailing: * Name of the draft * Name of presenter * Requested slot duration Mahalo, Daryl & Francois --_000_D06D837B231DEdmalascablelabscom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <17976000F184B24D8D8B1BCD78292C31@cablelabs.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Aloha,

The CDNI WG will b= e meeting at the IETF in Honolulu in a two hour time slot on Monday, Novemb= er 10th, from 13:00 =96 15:00. It=92s time to =93wow=94 us with all of the = progress everyone has made since Toronto. :-) We are in the process of putting together the agenda, so please send F= rancois and I your requests for slots detailing:

* Name of the draf= t
* Name of presente= r
* Requested slot d= uration

Mahalo,

Daryl & Franco= is
--_000_D06D837B231DEdmalascablelabscom_-- From nobody Thu Oct 23 02:37:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F135F1A8A1A for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:37:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LW7Hp7zMTpDU for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81F631A89C4 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:37:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1750; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414057031; x=1415266631; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=NpOAr/rYJg3WKP1iiiENWb8VA4GUEFAvFvc/adLFubY=; b=hENpyqUAKnJldWrzZsPGpwc6TS8/DmDq6+5PEEQd4STfyox/B3KctTNE yZuPjdw/uKckzjRqHnC2S8JfCpJ/8KuWH2f6MIVG881UVDJDPAw4kU6u9 yGQ75NwQ78aTg710b9UtWzWKXCn6yboqcc6EtsLeXGusbXjUrE1J9Rn8N o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtIFAJTLSFStJA2F/2dsb2JhbABcgkhGgTDUR4ERFgFyC4N5EHkSAQsBdCcEDohGx3MBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXjRKDRIM0gR4FkgWLWIExg0mHZYlOgg6BaoI0gQMBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,774,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="365726133" Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2014 09:37:10 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9N9bAdc030593 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:37:10 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.250]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 04:37:10 -0500 From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" To: "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Friendly reminder : I-D Cut-off date is next Monday (27 October 2014) Thread-Index: AQHP7qTqEFZD6E1HpU+KZH32k1VXvQ== Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:37:09 +0000 Message-ID: <296FA20B-5808-43F4-BECA-430AE480BA61@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.161.197] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_296FA20B580843F4BECA430AE480BA61ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/MH2E0x52D7LlfgrNc1zuD00Z2zM Subject: [CDNi] Friendly reminder : I-D Cut-off date is next Monday (27 October 2014) X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:37:13 -0000 --_000_296FA20B580843F4BECA430AE480BA61ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi folks, Please do keep in mind that the cut-off date for Internet-Draft submission = is only a few days away: " 2014-10-27 (Monday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts, inc= luding -00) by UTC 23:59 =93 Cheers Francois & Daryl --_000_296FA20B580843F4BECA430AE480BA61ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <356D0825220FAF49852C1948BEA2D95D@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi folks,

Please do keep in mind that the cut-off date for Internet-Draft submis= sion is only a few days away:
"
2014-10-27 (Monday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts, including -00) by UTC 23:59
=93

Cheers

Francois & Daryl
--_000_296FA20B580843F4BECA430AE480BA61ciscocom_-- From nobody Fri Oct 24 04:51:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B939E1A8A9E for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:43:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c9hnA1RdH5Ze for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:43:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0669A1A8AA3 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:43:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cdni@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.4.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141024114331.21295.73059.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:43:31 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/xiPBI7pa7PgxL7zpSr1pJzuJuIM X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:51:04 -0700 Subject: [CDNi] Milestones changed for cdni WG X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:43:35 -0000 Changed milestone "Submit CDNI requirements to IESG as Informational", resolved as "Done". Changed milestone "Submit CDNI framework to IESG as Informational", resolved as "Done". Changed milestone "Submit specification of the CDNI Logging interface to IESG as Proposed Standard", set due date to October 2014 from December 2013. Changed milestone "Submit specification of the CDNI Metadata interface to IESG as Proposed Standard", set due date to April 2015 from December 2013. Changed milestone "Submit specification of the CDNI Control interface to IESG as proposed Standard", set due date to April 2015 from April 2014. Changed milestone "Submit specification of the CDNI Request Routing Redirection interface to IESG as Proposed Standard", set due date to August 2015 from April 2014. Changed milestone "Submit specification of URI Signing for CDNI to IESG as Proposed Standard", set due date to August 2015 from September 2014. Changed milestone "Submit specification of the CDNI Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface to IESG as Proposed Standard", set due date to December 2015 from September 2014. Changed milestone "Recharter or dissolve", set due date to December 2015 from October 2014. URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/cdni/charter/ From nobody Fri Oct 24 05:28:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B72E81A8AB5 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:28:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ps4nT0sehM0i for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2681A8AF0 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host4.velocix.com ([81.134.152.4] helo=xxx.corp.velocix.com) by smtp04.mailcore.me with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XhdyS-0000HR-5s; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:28:08 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <703D416B-BA66-4464-900B-EBE592250FD1@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:28:06 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <703D416B-BA66-4464-900B-EBE592250FD1@cisco.com> To: Francois Le Faucher X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/5U8YUAkuSriG-hHtsO1GhSsbxt0 Cc: "cdni@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CDNi] Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:28:13 -0000 Francois, Kevin, The approach proposed seems pragmatic & sensible to me. Ben On 20 Oct 2014, at 17:25, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) = wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > As mentioned before, if no objections are raised by 24 October, we=92ll = adopt the approach described below by Kevin. >=20 > Cheers >=20 > Francois >=20 > On 17 Oct 2014, at 19:30, Kevin Ma J wrote: >=20 >> Hi all, >>=20 >> The previous question was how to divide up the work of advertisement = of capabilities >> (i.e., what logging fields do you support, what metadata/options do = you support, etc.). >> Ideally, capability advertisement would be defined with interfaces = themselves, however, >> the FCI specifications are not as mature as other (MI/LI/RI/CI) = interfaces. In an effort >> to allow progress of those interfaces, as we finish defining FCI, we = propose the following: >>=20 >> 1. The MI/LI/RI/CI drafts remove any place holders for FCI = discussion. >> 2. The FCI semantics draft will define the template for FCI objects. >> 3. The FCI semantics draft will define a registry for FCI objects. >> 4. We will publish separate RFCs describing capability advertisement = for MI/LI/RI/CI. >> The FCI objects defined in these RFCs will be registered in the = FCI object registry >> created by the FCI semantics draft. >>=20 >> We believe this provides the best trade-off between expediency and = functionality. >>=20 >> thanx. >>=20 >> -- Kevin J. Ma >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) [mailto:flefauch@cisco.com] >>> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:56 AM >>> To: cdni@ietf.org >>> Cc: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch); Jon Peterson; Jan Seedorf; = Kevin Ma J; >>> Daryl Malas >>> Subject: Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI >>>=20 >>> Folks, >>>=20 >>> During the last IETF meeting we discussed dependencies and = interactions >>> between Fottprint & Capabilities advertisement and the other CDNI = interfaces >>> (Logging, Metadata, Redirection, Control): See excerpt from the = Toronto CDNI >>> minutes at the bottom of this message. >>>=20 >>> Two options for handling this were presented in Toronto and a = tentative >>> agreement for the second option was reached. >>>=20 >>> Since then, a bunch of the protagonists (Kevin, Jan, Jon, Daryl, = Francois) >>> continued discuss this and came up with a third Option which we feel = is a >>> better compromise. I have asked Kevin to summarise this third option = and its >>> merits for review and discussion on the list. If no objections are = raised >>> within a week of Kevin describing it, we'd like to adopt this as the >>> approach going forward. Some of the LI/MI/RI/CI specs are on hold = since they >>> need to be aligned to the final agreed approach. >>>=20 >>> Please keep an eye for Kevin's message and raise support or concern >>> promptly. >>>=20 >>> Thanks >>>=20 >>> Francois >>> CDNI WG Chair >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= >>> FCI Semantics, draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-03: = Kevin Ma >>> = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- >>> --- >>> - Kevin presented the status update >>> - Problem presented regarding, "Binary options for Logging/Metadata >>> capability >>> support is unlikely to be sufficient to describe optional modes." = (See slide >>> 3 for details) >>> - Jan S: For things we know right now, binary is sufficient. But for = future >>> extensibility, we need to go beyond binary. Don't know? >>> - Francois: Why not possible to avoid dependencies on FCI draft to = publish >>> Metadata and Logging drafts? >>> - Kevin: Avoid shadow registries that are for FCI and other CDNI = interfaces >>> (metadata, logging, uri signing) >>> - Jan S: Don't need to decide now, WG needs to be aware of the issue = and >>> post comments on ML. Hard to decide right now w/o thinking more = about it. >>> - Daryl: I would like to wrap this up ASAP and get Logging draft = through >>> - Francois: Is there a way to reference the advertisement objects in = other >>> drafts from FCI registry? >>> - Kevin: This will block semantics draft, but not the FCI draft >>> - Spencer: If you go with binary, and stuck in the future, what = would you >>> do? >>> - Kevin/Jon: Rewrite the protocol, not non-backwards compatible >>> - Spencer: I don't like that. >>> - Jan/Kevin/Jon: More debate ... >>> - Francois: Can you update FCI semantics draft so other drafts can = document >>> their own FCI advertisement objects? Give guidance to other drafts. >>> - Matt C: My opinion that FCI is done before other drafts. I like = option 2. >>> - Cary Fitzgerald: Seems that you need to do the parsing? >>> - Kevin: Duplicate registries are difficult to sync up >>> - Kent: Option #2 seems reasonable >>> - Ray: Likes option #2 >>> - Jan S: Timeframe issue, can FCI semantics be done in time? >>> - Jon P: Need to steal stuff to write up FCI semantics >>> - Jon P.: Next version of FCI semantics draft can be done by = mid-Sept >>> - Francois: Now the Logging draft needs to be updated to use the = semantics >>> for advertising of its objects. And there will still be a dependency = for >>> publication. >>> - Room rough consensus on #2 to have each draft document its own >>> advertisement objects using the FCI semantics >>> - Chairs will identify a non-author reviewer for next rev of FCI = semantics >>> draft. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > CDNi mailing list > CDNi@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni From nobody Sat Oct 25 01:14:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9171A86E1; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:14:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XGu0ITc62eS3; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB501A86E6; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:14:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.4.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141025081441.2004.72206.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:14:41 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/A6mxGSJ5T6q9CG3Ggw35R9Sl7Os Cc: cdni@ietf.org Subject: [CDNi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-04.txt X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 08:14:43 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Content Delivery Networks Interconnection Working Group of the IETF. Title : Request Routing Redirection Interface for CDN Interconnection Authors : Ben Niven-Jenkins Ray van Brandenburg Filename : draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-04.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2014-10-25 Abstract: The Request Routing Interface comprises of (1) the asynchronous advertisement of footprint and capabilities by a downstream CDN that allows a upstream CDN to decide whether to redirect particular user requests to that downstream CDN; and (2) the synchronous operation of an upstream CDN requesting whether a downstream CDN is prepared to accept a user request and of a downstream CDN responding with how to actually redirect the user request. This document describes an interface for the latter part, i.e. the CDNI Request Routing Redirection interface. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-redirection/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Sat Oct 25 01:18:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89901A70E2 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:18:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HvSdbYRCWiMs for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4C21A6F9D for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 01:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc4-cmbg17-2-0-cust814.5-4.cable.virginm.net ([86.14.227.47] helo=[192.168.0.3]) by smtp04.mailcore.me with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XhwYP-00089m-Ty for cdni@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 09:18:30 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <20141025081441.2004.72206.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 09:18:28 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0D8B12F8-40E1-4D19-944F-4BC0C7D64972@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: <20141025081441.2004.72206.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/ho1bZ5JRbwPS7vhvYcDwvpJFb7c Subject: Re: [CDNi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-04.txt X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 08:18:34 -0000 Colleagues, This version is identical to -03 with the exception that we removed the = editors' note on adding a section for FCI capabilities as it is no = longer required as per the plan for FCI outlined by Francois & Kevin. Ben On 25 Oct 2014, at 09:14, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. > This draft is a work item of the Content Delivery Networks = Interconnection Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : Request Routing Redirection Interface for CDN = Interconnection > Authors : Ben Niven-Jenkins > Ray van Brandenburg > Filename : draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-04.txt > Pages : 29 > Date : 2014-10-25 >=20 > Abstract: > The Request Routing Interface comprises of (1) the asynchronous > advertisement of footprint and capabilities by a downstream CDN that > allows a upstream CDN to decide whether to redirect particular user > requests to that downstream CDN; and (2) the synchronous operation = of > an upstream CDN requesting whether a downstream CDN is prepared to > accept a user request and of a downstream CDN responding with how to > actually redirect the user request. This document describes an > interface for the latter part, i.e. the CDNI Request Routing > Redirection interface. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-redirection/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-04 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-cdni-redirection-04 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > CDNi mailing list > CDNi@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni From nobody Sat Oct 25 06:54:52 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68FCC1A000C for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zDDGyJYcEN9G for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 06:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48CD11A0007 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 06:54:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6036; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414245289; x=1415454889; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=dNTR9ges/yuARZRp0u/oyoEv6lezQSrskG8RI5LVxlE=; b=hLiltdL7bHMWuuVN22uhalFxsaVn/vaF3LXcGA4xAFsjwFd8eyPHNu1X lvk649qBD8iV93Qnbmms2FQKYc+z5iugvVlyEnNKHTmXjgHwApaEcel1t QvtLxdyfeuNjDl8EElQdCPynGoLXhy228+c0HkvqKRPyGi/rjil+064at 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AloFAFKrS1StJA2J/2dsb2JhbABSCoMOVFgEzTgKh00CgQgWAXILhAIBAQEDAQEBAWsQBwQCAQgRBAEBAScHJwsUCQgCBBOIOAkNyHwBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBIQUg2CCfIU8KToGgyeBHgWGLYtai1qBMYNJihWHH4N4bAGBR4EDAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,786,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="366378985" Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Oct 2014 13:54:48 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9PDslu7030071 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:54:47 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.250]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 08:54:47 -0500 From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" To: "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CDNi] Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI Thread-Index: AQHP6iLYGpx8XcfS6E60whQ2h/DRapw0h3dQgAT84QCAB7GsAA== Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:54:46 +0000 Message-ID: <4CBEC72A-522F-42E3-A199-56CC4477E860@cisco.com> References: <703D416B-BA66-4464-900B-EBE592250FD1@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <703D416B-BA66-4464-900B-EBE592250FD1@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.107.75] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <79E9D6A2F2D2944FAD50CB2E5A28E615@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/Fe7kSa4MrlbAJOt3CiyEZeKLVPY Subject: Re: [CDNi] Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 13:54:51 -0000 Hi all, Since no objections have been raised, the Working Group is adopting the app= roach described below by Kevin. To all cdni document authors, Please align all documents that are not yet aligned to this approach, if at= all possible before the Honolulu cut-off date (i.e. Monday 27 October). Thanks you Francois & Daryl On 20 Oct 2014, at 18:25, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > As mentioned before, if no objections are raised by 24 October, we=92ll a= dopt the approach described below by Kevin. >=20 > Cheers >=20 > Francois >=20 > On 17 Oct 2014, at 19:30, Kevin Ma J wrote: >=20 >> Hi all, >>=20 >> The previous question was how to divide up the work of advertisement of = capabilities >> (i.e., what logging fields do you support, what metadata/options do you = support, etc.). >> Ideally, capability advertisement would be defined with interfaces thems= elves, however, >> the FCI specifications are not as mature as other (MI/LI/RI/CI) interfac= es. In an effort >> to allow progress of those interfaces, as we finish defining FCI, we pro= pose the following: >>=20 >> 1. The MI/LI/RI/CI drafts remove any place holders for FCI discussion. >> 2. The FCI semantics draft will define the template for FCI objects. >> 3. The FCI semantics draft will define a registry for FCI objects. >> 4. We will publish separate RFCs describing capability advertisement for= MI/LI/RI/CI. >> The FCI objects defined in these RFCs will be registered in the FCI o= bject registry >> created by the FCI semantics draft. >>=20 >> We believe this provides the best trade-off between expediency and funct= ionality. >>=20 >> thanx. >>=20 >> -- Kevin J. Ma >>=20 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) [mailto:flefauch@cisco.com] >>> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:56 AM >>> To: cdni@ietf.org >>> Cc: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch); Jon Peterson; Jan Seedorf; Kevin M= a J; >>> Daryl Malas >>> Subject: Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI >>>=20 >>> Folks, >>>=20 >>> During the last IETF meeting we discussed dependencies and interactions >>> between Fottprint & Capabilities advertisement and the other CDNI inter= faces >>> (Logging, Metadata, Redirection, Control): See excerpt from the Toronto= CDNI >>> minutes at the bottom of this message. >>>=20 >>> Two options for handling this were presented in Toronto and a tentative >>> agreement for the second option was reached. >>>=20 >>> Since then, a bunch of the protagonists (Kevin, Jan, Jon, Daryl, Franco= is) >>> continued discuss this and came up with a third Option which we feel is= a >>> better compromise. I have asked Kevin to summarise this third option an= d its >>> merits for review and discussion on the list. If no objections are rais= ed >>> within a week of Kevin describing it, we'd like to adopt this as the >>> approach going forward. Some of the LI/MI/RI/CI specs are on hold since= they >>> need to be aligned to the final agreed approach. >>>=20 >>> Please keep an eye for Kevin's message and raise support or concern >>> promptly. >>>=20 >>> Thanks >>>=20 >>> Francois >>> CDNI WG Chair >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D >>> FCI Semantics, draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-03: Kev= in Ma >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- >>> --- >>> - Kevin presented the status update >>> - Problem presented regarding, "Binary options for Logging/Metadata >>> capability >>> support is unlikely to be sufficient to describe optional modes." (See = slide >>> 3 for details) >>> - Jan S: For things we know right now, binary is sufficient. But for fu= ture >>> extensibility, we need to go beyond binary. Don't know? >>> - Francois: Why not possible to avoid dependencies on FCI draft to publ= ish >>> Metadata and Logging drafts? >>> - Kevin: Avoid shadow registries that are for FCI and other CDNI interf= aces >>> (metadata, logging, uri signing) >>> - Jan S: Don't need to decide now, WG needs to be aware of the issue an= d >>> post comments on ML. Hard to decide right now w/o thinking more about i= t. >>> - Daryl: I would like to wrap this up ASAP and get Logging draft throug= h >>> - Francois: Is there a way to reference the advertisement objects in ot= her >>> drafts from FCI registry? >>> - Kevin: This will block semantics draft, but not the FCI draft >>> - Spencer: If you go with binary, and stuck in the future, what would y= ou >>> do? >>> - Kevin/Jon: Rewrite the protocol, not non-backwards compatible >>> - Spencer: I don't like that. >>> - Jan/Kevin/Jon: More debate ... >>> - Francois: Can you update FCI semantics draft so other drafts can docu= ment >>> their own FCI advertisement objects? Give guidance to other drafts. >>> - Matt C: My opinion that FCI is done before other drafts. I like optio= n 2. >>> - Cary Fitzgerald: Seems that you need to do the parsing? >>> - Kevin: Duplicate registries are difficult to sync up >>> - Kent: Option #2 seems reasonable >>> - Ray: Likes option #2 >>> - Jan S: Timeframe issue, can FCI semantics be done in time? >>> - Jon P: Need to steal stuff to write up FCI semantics >>> - Jon P.: Next version of FCI semantics draft can be done by mid-Sept >>> - Francois: Now the Logging draft needs to be updated to use the semant= ics >>> for advertising of its objects. And there will still be a dependency fo= r >>> publication. >>> - Room rough consensus on #2 to have each draft document its own >>> advertisement objects using the FCI semantics >>> - Chairs will identify a non-author reviewer for next rev of FCI semant= ics >>> draft. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > CDNi mailing list > CDNi@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni From nobody Sat Oct 25 07:36:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508E91A0030; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:36:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H6G0dfvWXvhF; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D951A004C; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:35:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.4.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141025143559.2743.46487.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:35:59 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/RGjEqHOiNYPz54BXuxqmDHOP0eM Cc: cdni@ietf.org Subject: [CDNi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cdni-logging-14.txt X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 14:36:01 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Content Delivery Networks Interconnection Working Group of the IETF. Title : CDNI Logging Interface Authors : Francois Le Faucheur Gilles Bertrand Iuniana Oprescu Roy Peterkofsky Filename : draft-ietf-cdni-logging-14.txt Pages : 51 Date : 2014-10-25 Abstract: This memo specifies the Logging interface between a downstream CDN (dCDN) and an upstream CDN (uCDN) that are interconnected as per the CDN Interconnection (CDNI) framework. First, it describes a reference model for CDNI logging. Then, it specifies the CDNI Logging File format and the actual protocol for exchange of CDNI Logging Files. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-logging/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-logging-14 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cdni-logging-14 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Oct 27 05:56:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0FFF1A9244 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:56:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id scXzeJC_3Tc9 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7887E1A916E for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 05:56:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1570; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414414588; x=1415624188; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=detdj/T6/SqXk4uMmj/DqzeAxXPEXnrCTvSNL9IkaCI=; b=WwPp/6o6SQkt1pu3qzl/7m38QvctqqoPT2U4xCbWioLj/r2mlbQ/t6Us gpEAAXkROp+J4NUDfmd/Q/QdoVYjRYMdRNFnueinOW33FCYLoi2JPKm2B HVYn41U4A5V38Q+vA+vruTZG6eHDHXBQl/oC7OcRqLsWXtlhG8t4PPlSy E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AikFAL4/TlStJV2U/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UXM08h02BGxYBcguDeRBuHQELAXQnBIhUDaY5pAIBAQEBAQEEAQEBAQEBAQEBFQSRBIM4gR4FkgeESIcSgTGDSY00hACDeII0gQMBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,795,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="366741343" Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2014 12:56:27 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9RCuQqG013654 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:56:26 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.250]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 07:56:26 -0500 From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" To: "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Start of Working Group Last Call on "draft-ietf-cdni-control-triggers-04" Thread-Index: AQHP8eVr53JGqHwZvEKCJ+SQVXsfDw== Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:56:26 +0000 Message-ID: <9CC81E34-0603-43E2-9DFC-625588CBC310@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.161.200] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9CC81E34060343E29DFC625588CBC310ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/1zn4VqmCKMYlKSjOdWh9soi9ydU Subject: [CDNi] Start of Working Group Last Call on "draft-ietf-cdni-control-triggers-04" X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:56:29 -0000 --_000_9CC81E34060343E29DFC625588CBC310ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All, In accordance with our Toronto agreement, this is the start of a two-week W= orking Group Last Call on draft-ietf-cdni-control-triggers-04: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-control-triggers/ This Working Group Last Call will end on 9 Nov 2014. Please send your comments to the CDNI Mailing List. Francois & Daryl --_000_9CC81E34060343E29DFC625588CBC310ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All,

In accordance with our Toronto agreement, this is the start of a two-w= eek Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-cdni-control-triggers-04:

This Working Group Last Call will end on 9 Nov 2014. 
Please send your comments to the CDNI Mailing List. 

Francois & Daryl
--_000_9CC81E34060343E29DFC625588CBC310ciscocom_-- From nobody Mon Oct 27 12:25:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387551AD06B; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:24:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TYWvgqiQjKzh; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:24:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE671AD0B7; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:24:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.7.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141027192440.3705.45598.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:24:40 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/Tygq9zkIURKc0cbM0abHSE1j6bc Cc: cdni@ietf.org Subject: [CDNi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08.txt X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:24:46 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Content Delivery Networks Interconnection Working Group of the IETF. Title : CDN Interconnection Metadata Authors : Ben Niven-Jenkins Rob Murray Matt Caulfield Kevin J. Ma Filename : draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08.txt Pages : 47 Date : 2014-10-27 Abstract: The CDNI Metadata interface enables interconnected CDNs to exchange content distribution metadata in order to enable content acquisition and delivery. The CDNI metadata associated with a piece of content provides a downstream CDN with sufficient information for the downstream CDN to service content requests on behalf of an upstream CDN. This document describes both a base set of CDNI metadata and the protocol for exchanging that metadata. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-metadata/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Oct 27 12:38:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD171ACD23 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:38:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yu0B5zBV_-2t for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3469A1AD37A for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:38:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2342; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414438680; x=1415648280; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=tQSYMhLbMm5YgewuStQ3ppo6WaelP/AgtvhefmIRvt0=; b=mxl+wflCpm62X8Mz/SaAeLWCQ+q+jBIaab53qOIG+76iKHdDOOyWtdSE 4ePQE4kRVEEestjuKHXf4WtBwEHfOf+HkuOtvly36WyX3zGYSmI8VeDYJ /+mjWLuhR+ETHv0cS0NidCgYzKedLpEndo6N4l0Z9e557AFYi8PX11lAT Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj4FAGyeTlStJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UUwUEzTAKh00CgR0WAXILhAIBAQEEAQEBNzQXBAIBCBEEAQELFAkHJwsUCQgCBBMIAYg4CAXLUwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReQVzgGgyeBHgWSB4RIgkOGADyDDZE0g3hsgUiBAwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,797,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="90725342" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2014 19:37:59 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9RJbxYd001813 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:37:59 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.11]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:37:58 -0500 From: "Matt Caulfield (mcaulfie)" To: "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CDNi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08.txt Thread-Index: AQHP8hvPXKQ7MNfn7EadsHwU8yWsnpxEVixQ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:37:57 +0000 Message-ID: <166EBB70C264A9479E459B01B1BA6C926D5EA34C@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> References: <20141027192440.3705.45598.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20141027192440.3705.45598.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.131.69.127] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/_tuj0F8oyRjkIdSONStmtXE3B-U Subject: Re: [CDNi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08.txt X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:38:02 -0000 This new version of the metadata draft includes many edits and clarificatio= ns based on general comments from the Toronto meeting and remaining comment= s from Francois' WG chair review last Spring. Enjoy, Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: CDNi [mailto:cdni-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet- > drafts@ietf.org > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 3:25 PM > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: cdni@ietf.org > Subject: [CDNi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08.txt >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Content Delivery Networks > Interconnection Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : CDN Interconnection Metadata > Authors : Ben Niven-Jenkins > Rob Murray > Matt Caulfield > Kevin J. Ma > Filename : draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08.txt > Pages : 47 > Date : 2014-10-27 >=20 > Abstract: > The CDNI Metadata interface enables interconnected CDNs to > exchange > content distribution metadata in order to enable content acquisition > and delivery. The CDNI metadata associated with a piece of content > provides a downstream CDN with sufficient information for the > downstream CDN to service content requests on behalf of an upstream > CDN. This document describes both a base set of CDNI metadata and > the protocol for exchanging that metadata. >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-metadata/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > CDNi mailing list > CDNi@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni From nobody Mon Oct 27 14:03:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDE51AD504 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:02:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1-GTtSOFetBL for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E47941AD502 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:02:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2164; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414443757; x=1415653357; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=xMPMCHOpb478S/zkcI3yHhBb27XjfDLGZSagXooTtC4=; b=StJGpxBDWzUOVH7zPZ61csmq4XjnPK53AWSLFsTvQy4WBwEcinB9fnmu 5HOYf9akLuOX7c1LqSlepcAYyJyDXTICw3FI2yiKwtgnWJoZpxxcm/SwP uZakcTrGvYsHFDFDscKZbbpSKEL5fsdDq4foweoEkhr+Zxz/5s1Gbvl6F E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArUGAB+yTlStJA2N/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UUwUEgwLKQYdLAht/FgFyC4QCAQEBBCMRQw4EAgEIEQQBAQMCBh0DAgICMBQBBgEBBQMCBBMIAYg4CAW2dJR4AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4EsjwgjOAaCcTaBHgWSB4RIiEM8gw2RNIN4bAGBR4EDAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,798,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="90785374" Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2014 21:02:37 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9RL2bDe028091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:02:37 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.6.11]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:02:37 -0500 From: "Matt Caulfield (mcaulfie)" To: "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-caulfield-cdni-rate-pacing-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHP8iitmqUDlm8Sw0itBE11rCEj3JxEbWMg Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:02:36 +0000 Message-ID: <166EBB70C264A9479E459B01B1BA6C926D5EA3F8@xmb-aln-x03.cisco.com> References: <20141027205746.27672.89779.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20141027205746.27672.89779.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.131.69.127] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/AX350mN9vz2ytY0CN3PzWuRugvM Subject: [CDNi] FW: New Version Notification for draft-caulfield-cdni-rate-pacing-02.txt X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:02:40 -0000 VGhpcyBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgcmF0ZSBwYWNpbmcgZHJhZnQgaW5jb3Jwb3JhdGVzIGNv bW1lbnRzIGZyb20gRnJhbmNvaXMgc2VudCBwcmlvciB0byB0aGUgTG9uZG9uIG1lZXRpbmcgKE1h cmNoIDIwMTQpLg0KDQpDaGVlcnMsDQpNYXR0DQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0t DQpGcm9tOiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNA aWV0Zi5vcmddIA0KU2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBPY3RvYmVyIDI3LCAyMDE0IDQ6NTggUE0NClRvOiBN YXR0IENhdWxmaWVsZCAobWNhdWxmaWUpOyBNYXR0IENhdWxmaWVsZCAobWNhdWxmaWUpDQpTdWJq ZWN0OiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yIGRyYWZ0LWNhdWxmaWVsZC1jZG5pLXJh dGUtcGFjaW5nLTAyLnR4dA0KDQoNCkEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgSS1ELCBkcmFmdC1jYXVsZmll bGQtY2RuaS1yYXRlLXBhY2luZy0wMi50eHQNCmhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0 ZWQgYnkgTWF0dCBDYXVsZmllbGQgYW5kIHBvc3RlZCB0byB0aGUNCklFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4N Cg0KTmFtZToJCWRyYWZ0LWNhdWxmaWVsZC1jZG5pLXJhdGUtcGFjaW5nDQpSZXZpc2lvbjoJMDIN ClRpdGxlOgkJQ0ROSSBSYXRlIFBhY2luZw0KRG9jdW1lbnQgZGF0ZToJMjAxNC0xMC0yNw0KR3Jv dXA6CQlJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1Ym1pc3Npb24NClBhZ2VzOgkJOA0KVVJMOiAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWNhdWxmaWVsZC1jZG5pLXJh dGUtcGFjaW5nLTAyLnR4dA0KU3RhdHVzOiAgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWNhdWxmaWVsZC1jZG5pLXJhdGUtcGFjaW5nLw0KSHRtbGl6ZWQ6ICAg ICAgIGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWNhdWxmaWVsZC1jZG5pLXJhdGUt cGFjaW5nLTAyDQpEaWZmOiAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9yZmNkaWZmP3Vy bDI9ZHJhZnQtY2F1bGZpZWxkLWNkbmktcmF0ZS1wYWNpbmctMDINCg0KQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQogICBS YXRlIHBhY2luZyBpcyBhIGNsYXNzIG9mIG5ldHdvcmsgdHJhZmZpYyBzaGFwaW5nIHdoaWNoIGxp bWl0cyB0aGUNCiAgIHRyYW5zbWlzc2lvbiByYXRlIG9mIGRhdGEgb3ZlciBhIG5ldHdvcmsuICBU aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IGRlZmluZXMgQ0ROSQ0KICAgZXh0ZW5zaW9ucyBmb3IgZG93bnN0cmVhbSBD RE5zIHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgcmF0ZSBwYWNpbmcgb24gYmVoYWxmIG9mDQogICB1cHN0cmVhbSBDRE5z Lg0KDQoNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICANCg0KDQpQbGVhc2Ugbm90ZSB0aGF0IGl0 IG1heSB0YWtlIGEgY291cGxlIG9mIG1pbnV0ZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgdGltZSBvZiBzdWJtaXNzaW9u DQp1bnRpbCB0aGUgaHRtbGl6ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBhbmQgZGlmZiBhcmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0IHRv b2xzLmlldGYub3JnLg0KDQpUaGUgSUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdA0KDQo= From nobody Mon Oct 27 14:57:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480391A0196; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:57:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iP41Mu9rdghO; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B254F1A0242; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:56:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.7.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20141027215639.20216.22305.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:56:39 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/5duVyl8JfxjViHDK5KkcTDV_pZI Cc: cdni@ietf.org Subject: [CDNi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-04.txt X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 21:57:45 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Content Delivery Networks Interconnection Working Group of the IETF. Title : CDNI Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities Semantics Authors : Jan Seedorf Jon Peterson Stefano Previdi Ray van Brandenburg Kevin J. Ma Filename : draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-04.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2014-10-27 Abstract: This document tries to capture the semantics of the "Footprint and Capabilities Advertisement" part of the CDNI Request Routing interface, i.e., the desired meaning and what "Footprint and Capabilities Advertisement" is expected to offer within CDNI. The discussion in this document has the goal to facilitate the choosing of one or more suitable protocols for "Footprint and Capabilities Advertisement" within CDNI Request Routing. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Oct 28 13:46:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB6D1A8A71 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:46:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MO6IbnkIgeZD for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:46:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B2261A8AE7 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BLA66834; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:46:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.72) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:46:21 +0000 Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml702-chm ([10.193.5.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:46:11 -0700 From: Linda Dunbar To: "cdni@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-cdni-metadata@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 Thread-Index: Ac/y8DQWUuxKHO55R3in4+YFrJp9AQ== Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:46:10 +0000 Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E252B6@dfweml701-chm> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.160] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E252B6dfweml701chm_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/QHazSSAETboGdc4G_Bfp9g04070 Subject: [CDNi] review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:46:27 -0000 --_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E252B6dfweml701chm_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ben, Rob, Matt, and Kevin, This draft is long and defined a lot of terms: Host Index, Host Match, host= -meta-data, Path Match, path-meta-data, generic-metadata-objects, etc. Is the intent of the draft to define the proper data structure for dCDN to = request content from upstream CDN? Is the following correct? host-meta-data =3D=3D "IP addresses"? path-meta-data =3D=3D URI? The "PathMatch" is about matching the URI path, isn't it? Is the "Host Match" about matching "Host Identity"? For the example shown on Page 34: If the incoming request has a Host header with "video.example.com" then the downstream CDN would fetch the next metadata object from "http://metadata.ucdn.example/host1234" expecting a MIME type of "application/cdni.HostMetadata.v1+json": A much simpler expression could be "if host =3D .., then fetch content from= the URI". It doesn't really need all the terminologies defined in earlier= sections, does it? Linda Dunbar Huawei USA IP Technology Lab 5340 Legacy Drive, Plano, TX 75024 Tel: +1 469-277 - 5840 Fax: +1 469 -277 - 5900 --_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E252B6dfweml701chm_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ben, Rob, Matt, and Kevin,

 

This draft is long and defined a lot of terms: Host = Index, Host Match, host-meta-data, Path Match, path-meta-data, generic-meta= data-objects, etc.

Is the intent of the draft to define the proper data= structure for dCDN to request content from upstream CDN?

 

 

Is the following correct?

 

host-meta-data =3D=3D “IP addresses”?

path-meta-data =3D=3D URI?

 

 

The “PathMatch” is about matching the UR= I path, isn’t it?

Is the “Host Match” about matching ̶= 0;Host Identity”?

 

 

For the example shown on Page 34:

If the incoming request has a Ho= st header with "video.example.com"

then the downstream CDN would fe= tch the next metadata object from

"http://metadata.ucdn.example/h= ost1234" expecting a MIME type of

"application/cdni.HostMetad= ata.v1+json":

 

 

A much simpler expression could be “if host = =3D .., then fetch content from the URI”.  It doesn’t real= ly need all the terminologies defined in earlier sections, does it?

 

 

Linda Dunbar

 

Huawei USA IP Te= chnology Lab

5340 Legacy Driv= e,

Plano, TX 75024<= o:p>

Tel: +1 469-= 277 - 5840

Fax: +1 469 = -277 - 5900

 

--_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E252B6dfweml701chm_-- From nobody Tue Oct 28 15:23:08 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817461A0055 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:22:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WJLho_aEyzZz for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 731771A0039 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BLA71100; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 22:22:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.130) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 22:22:51 +0000 Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml703-chm ([10.193.5.130]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:22:34 -0700 From: Linda Dunbar To: Linda Dunbar , "cdni@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-cdni-metadata@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 Thread-Index: Ac/y8DQWUuxKHO55R3in4+YFrJp9AQADSuJQ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 22:22:34 +0000 Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E253F2@dfweml701-chm> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.160] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E253F2dfweml701chm_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/AiI7LKBUrBKzkflCJLxzr_yBbIM Subject: Re: [CDNi] review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 22:22:58 -0000 --_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E253F2dfweml701chm_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ben, Rob, Matt, and Kevin, Is section 3 meant for "Information Model"? I think there should be a section to describe the information model (or UML= ) for the CDNi Meta data before the actual data model. Linda From: Linda Dunbar Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:46 PM To: 'cdni@ietf.org'; draft-ietf-cdni-metadata@tools.ietf.org Subject: review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 Ben, Rob, Matt, and Kevin, This draft is long and defined a lot of terms: Host Index, Host Match, host= -meta-data, Path Match, path-meta-data, generic-metadata-objects, etc. Is the intent of the draft to define the proper data structure for dCDN to = request content from upstream CDN? Is the following correct? host-meta-data =3D=3D "IP addresses"? path-meta-data =3D=3D URI? The "PathMatch" is about matching the URI path, isn't it? Is the "Host Match" about matching "Host Identity"? For the example shown on Page 34: If the incoming request has a Host header with "video.example.com" then the downstream CDN would fetch the next metadata object from "http://metadata.ucdn.example/host1234" expecting a MIME type of "application/cdni.HostMetadata.v1+json": A much simpler expression could be "if host =3D .., then fetch content from= the URI". It doesn't really need all the terminologies defined in earlier= sections, does it? Linda Dunbar Huawei USA IP Technology Lab 5340 Legacy Drive, Plano, TX 75024 Tel: +1 469-277 - 5840 Fax: +1 469 -277 - 5900 --_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E253F2dfweml701chm_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ben, Rob, Matt, and Ke= vin,

 

Is section 3 meant for= “Information Model”?

 

I think there should b= e a section to describe the information model (or UML) for the CDNi Meta da= ta before the actual data model.

 

Linda

 

From: Linda Du= nbar
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:46 PM
To: 'cdni@ietf.org'; draft-ietf-cdni-metadata@tools.ietf.org
Subject: review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08

 

Ben, Rob, Matt, and Kevin,

 

This draft is long and defined a lot of terms: Host = Index, Host Match, host-meta-data, Path Match, path-meta-data, generic-meta= data-objects, etc.

Is the intent of the draft to define the proper data= structure for dCDN to request content from upstream CDN?

 

 

Is the following correct?

 

host-meta-data =3D=3D “IP addresses”?

path-meta-data =3D=3D URI?

 

 

The “PathMatch” is about matching the UR= I path, isn’t it?

Is the “Host Match” about matching ̶= 0;Host Identity”?

 

 

For the example shown on Page 34:

If the incoming request has a Ho= st header with "video.example.com"

then the downstream CDN would fe= tch the next metadata object from

"http://metadata.ucdn.example/host1234" expecting a MIME type of

"application/cdni.HostMetad= ata.v1+json":

 

 

A much simpler expression could be “if host = =3D .., then fetch content from the URI”.  It doesn’t real= ly need all the terminologies defined in earlier sections, does it?

 

 

Linda Dunbar

 

Huawei USA IP Te= chnology Lab

5340 Legacy Driv= e,

Plano, TX 75024<= o:p>

Tel: +1 469-= 277 - 5840

Fax: +1 469 = -277 - 5900

 

--_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E253F2dfweml701chm_-- From nobody Tue Oct 28 16:10:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879961A1A6A for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:10:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g35s1gxxvhjt for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970151A1AA7 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc4-cmbg17-2-0-cust814.5-4.cable.virginm.net ([86.14.227.47] helo=[192.168.0.3]) by smtp04.mailcore.me with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XjFu4-0000mE-P2; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:10:16 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E253F2@dfweml701-chm> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:10:13 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E253F2@dfweml701-chm> To: Linda Dunbar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/BAghsZ9xI0NkgtQb4S3jlbjROGQ Cc: "draft-ietf-cdni-metadata@tools.ietf.org" , "cdni@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CDNi] review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:10:32 -0000 Linda, On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:22, Linda Dunbar wrote: > Ben, Rob, Matt, and Kevin, > =20 > Is section 3 meant for =93Information Model=94? > =20 > I think there should be a section to describe the information model = (or UML) for the CDNi Meta data before the actual data model. Could you expand a bit on what improvement you think including an = information model would add to the document? I don't recall coming across something like that in other protocols = specifications. Thanks Ben > =20 > Linda From nobody Tue Oct 28 16:29:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A62671A1AFF for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:29:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HYS9XJctX-sw for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1340F1A03E1 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc4-cmbg17-2-0-cust814.5-4.cable.virginm.net ([86.14.227.47] helo=[192.168.0.3]) by smtp04.mailcore.me with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XjGCS-0003a9-AM; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:29:16 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E252B6@dfweml701-chm> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:29:14 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <992C4FEF-BBAD-4C7C-A3DD-BF77530E7E5D@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E252B6@dfweml701-chm> To: Linda Dunbar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/87VWB6sn5BhFAfoDrUTNzQHW7so Cc: "draft-ietf-cdni-metadata@tools.ietf.org" , "cdni@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CDNi] review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:29:19 -0000 Linda, On 28 Oct 2014, at 20:46, Linda Dunbar wrote: > Ben, Rob, Matt, and Kevin, > =20 > This draft is long and defined a lot of terms: Host Index, Host Match, = host-meta-data, Path Match, path-meta-data, generic-metadata-objects, = etc. > Is the intent of the draft to define the proper data structure for = dCDN to request content from upstream CDN? No. The intent is to define data structures for describing how to = deliver content, as well as policies for where is allowed to receive it, = etc. The details of how to obtain the content is only one part of describing = how to deliver the content. =20 > Is the following correct? > =20 > host-meta-data =3D=3D =93IP addresses=94? host-meta-data isn't used in the document. I'm assuming you are asking = what the value of the host-metadata property is? It is a link to a URI that returns a HostMetadata object which is a JSON = object describing the default CDNI Metadata objects for content served = from that host. > path-meta-data =3D=3D URI? path-metadata is a link to a URI that returns a PathMetadata object = which is a JSON object describing the CDNI GenericMetadata objects for = content served with the associated URI path (defined in a PathMatch = object). > =20 > The =93PathMatch=94 is about matching the URI path, isn=92t it? Yes. > Is the =93Host Match=94 about matching =93Host Identity=94? I'm not sure what you mean by "host Identity". The HostMatch tells the = dCDN which URIs provide the necessary metadata for which hostnames the = CDN may receive request on. =20 > For the example shown on Page 34: > If the incoming request has a Host header with "video.example.com" > then the downstream CDN would fetch the next metadata object from > "http://metadata.ucdn.example/host1234" expecting a MIME type of > "application/cdni.HostMetadata.v1+json": > =20 > =20 > A much simpler expression could be =93if host =3D .., then fetch = content from the URI=94. It doesn=92t really need all the terminologies = defined in earlier sections, does it? I don't understand your point?=20 Ben > =20 > =20 > Linda Dunbar > =20 > Huawei USA IP Technology Lab > 5340 Legacy Drive, > Plano, TX 75024 > Tel: +1 469-277 - 5840 > Fax: +1 469 -277 - 5900 > =20 > _______________________________________________ > CDNi mailing list > CDNi@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni From nobody Thu Oct 30 01:04:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E081AD03E for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 01:04:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.217 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cLf2OJFYrsrf for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 01:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fromintoutb.tno.nl (fromintoutb.tno.nl [134.221.1.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7C41AD00B for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 01:04:10 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,284,1413237600"; d="scan'208";a="5419103" Received: from exc-cashub02.tsn.tno.nl (HELO mail.tno.nl) ([134.221.225.221]) by mailhost1b.tno.nl with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2014 09:04:08 +0100 Received: from EXC-MBX03.tsn.tno.nl ([fe80::e969:1300:fb9f:7e12]) by EXC-CASHUB02.tsn.tno.nl ([fe80::8c02:de2a:3094:171%14]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:04:08 +0100 From: "Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van" To: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" , "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CDNi] Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI Thread-Index: AQHP6iLYGpx8XcfS6E60whQ2h/DRapw0h3dQgAT84QCAB7GsAIAHJd6A Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:04:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <703D416B-BA66-4464-900B-EBE592250FD1@cisco.com> <4CBEC72A-522F-42E3-A199-56CC4477E860@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4CBEC72A-522F-42E3-A199-56CC4477E860@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US, nl-NL Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.5.141003 x-originating-ip: [134.221.225.153] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <28559C10E1D6974D80634D787AF3BCAC@tno.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/Pd2-O_Gb8LcpfgJeC8ZdTvEkJvk Subject: Re: [CDNi] Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:04:13 -0000 Hi all, Sorry for the late response, I=B9ve been on vacation. I=B9m ok with the proposal below. The only question I have concerns point 4. Did you guys consider the option of writing a single RFC with the FCI parts of all four main CDNI interfaces instead of having separate RFCs for each? Thanks, Ray On 25/10/14 15:54, "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" wrote: >Hi all, >Since no objections have been raised, the Working Group is adopting the >approach described below by Kevin. > >To all cdni document authors, >Please align all documents that are not yet aligned to this approach, if >at all possible before the Honolulu cut-off date (i.e. Monday 27 October). > >Thanks you > >Francois & Daryl > > >On 20 Oct 2014, at 18:25, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> = >> As mentioned before, if no objections are raised by 24 October, we=B9ll >>adopt the approach described below by Kevin. >> = >> Cheers >> = >> Francois >> = >> On 17 Oct 2014, at 19:30, Kevin Ma J wrote: >> = >>> Hi all, >>> = >>> The previous question was how to divide up the work of advertisement >>>of capabilities >>> (i.e., what logging fields do you support, what metadata/options do >>>you support, etc.). >>> Ideally, capability advertisement would be defined with interfaces >>>themselves, however, >>> the FCI specifications are not as mature as other (MI/LI/RI/CI) >>>interfaces. In an effort >>> to allow progress of those interfaces, as we finish defining FCI, we >>>propose the following: >>> = >>> 1. The MI/LI/RI/CI drafts remove any place holders for FCI discussion. >>> 2. The FCI semantics draft will define the template for FCI objects. >>> 3. The FCI semantics draft will define a registry for FCI objects. >>> 4. We will publish separate RFCs describing capability advertisement >>>for MI/LI/RI/CI. >>> The FCI objects defined in these RFCs will be registered in the FCI >>>object registry >>> created by the FCI semantics draft. >>> = >>> We believe this provides the best trade-off between expediency and >>>functionality. >>> = >>> thanx. >>> = >>> -- Kevin J. Ma >>> = >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) [mailto:flefauch@cisco.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:56 AM >>>> To: cdni@ietf.org >>>> Cc: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch); Jon Peterson; Jan Seedorf; Kevin >>>>Ma J; >>>> Daryl Malas >>>> Subject: Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI >>>> = >>>> Folks, >>>> = >>>> During the last IETF meeting we discussed dependencies and >>>>interactions >>>> between Fottprint & Capabilities advertisement and the other CDNI >>>>interfaces >>>> (Logging, Metadata, Redirection, Control): See excerpt from the >>>>Toronto CDNI >>>> minutes at the bottom of this message. >>>> = >>>> Two options for handling this were presented in Toronto and a >>>>tentative >>>> agreement for the second option was reached. >>>> = >>>> Since then, a bunch of the protagonists (Kevin, Jan, Jon, Daryl, >>>>Francois) >>>> continued discuss this and came up with a third Option which we feel >>>>is a >>>> better compromise. I have asked Kevin to summarise this third option >>>>and its >>>> merits for review and discussion on the list. If no objections are >>>>raised >>>> within a week of Kevin describing it, we'd like to adopt this as the >>>> approach going forward. Some of the LI/MI/RI/CI specs are on hold >>>>since they >>>> need to be aligned to the final agreed approach. >>>> = >>>> Please keep an eye for Kevin's message and raise support or concern >>>> promptly. >>>> = >>>> Thanks >>>> = >>>> Francois >>>> CDNI WG Chair >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D >>>> FCI Semantics, draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-03: >>>>Kevin Ma >>>> = >>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>----- >>>> --- >>>> - Kevin presented the status update >>>> - Problem presented regarding, "Binary options for Logging/Metadata >>>> capability >>>> support is unlikely to be sufficient to describe optional modes." >>>>(See slide >>>> 3 for details) >>>> - Jan S: For things we know right now, binary is sufficient. But for >>>>future >>>> extensibility, we need to go beyond binary. Don't know? >>>> - Francois: Why not possible to avoid dependencies on FCI draft to >>>>publish >>>> Metadata and Logging drafts? >>>> - Kevin: Avoid shadow registries that are for FCI and other CDNI >>>>interfaces >>>> (metadata, logging, uri signing) >>>> - Jan S: Don't need to decide now, WG needs to be aware of the issue >>>>and >>>> post comments on ML. Hard to decide right now w/o thinking more about >>>>it. >>>> - Daryl: I would like to wrap this up ASAP and get Logging draft >>>>through >>>> - Francois: Is there a way to reference the advertisement objects in >>>>other >>>> drafts from FCI registry? >>>> - Kevin: This will block semantics draft, but not the FCI draft >>>> - Spencer: If you go with binary, and stuck in the future, what would >>>>you >>>> do? >>>> - Kevin/Jon: Rewrite the protocol, not non-backwards compatible >>>> - Spencer: I don't like that. >>>> - Jan/Kevin/Jon: More debate ... >>>> - Francois: Can you update FCI semantics draft so other drafts can >>>>document >>>> their own FCI advertisement objects? Give guidance to other drafts. >>>> - Matt C: My opinion that FCI is done before other drafts. I like >>>>option 2. >>>> - Cary Fitzgerald: Seems that you need to do the parsing? >>>> - Kevin: Duplicate registries are difficult to sync up >>>> - Kent: Option #2 seems reasonable >>>> - Ray: Likes option #2 >>>> - Jan S: Timeframe issue, can FCI semantics be done in time? >>>> - Jon P: Need to steal stuff to write up FCI semantics >>>> - Jon P.: Next version of FCI semantics draft can be done by mid-Sept >>>> - Francois: Now the Logging draft needs to be updated to use the >>>>semantics >>>> for advertising of its objects. And there will still be a dependency >>>>for >>>> publication. >>>> - Room rough consensus on #2 to have each draft document its own >>>> advertisement objects using the FCI semantics >>>> - Chairs will identify a non-author reviewer for next rev of FCI >>>>semantics >>>> draft. >> = >> _______________________________________________ >> CDNi mailing list >> CDNi@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni > >_______________________________________________ >CDNi mailing list >CDNi@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you a= re not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are= requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liab= ility for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it an= d for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electroni= c transmission of messages. From nobody Thu Oct 30 01:40:14 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9340A1A6FDE for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 01:40:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cako3rtvr__r for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 01:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E326A1A6FC6 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 01:40:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7917; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414658411; x=1415868011; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=i/4puYXQ9KQcMKtz+zTuJBC3wBYLQHRaoI4bnlpjQC8=; b=EG2aFizDO4hjSTpbmS6g0jjihm19KGB7o7Vu6/t1yJKpoU1upSyoGmsb QgCbcLCqHQCFGz57J6JOXPxjKW1daAk1gxLOF5C0pA41jOy1ti3Piw3iK BpJQx7arZj1+nJK4Vi2Mu51W0C0SaDVYZcft4+Bdw1g7+sYW33kHmF67q A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFAAf4UVStJV2b/2dsb2JhbABSCoMOVFgEy0+CKgqHTQKBHxYBAQEBAX2EAgEBAQMBAQEBawsFBwQCAQgRBAEBAScHJwsUCQgCBA4FiDgJDcgQAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwSEFINign6FQCkzBwaDJ4EeBYYti2CFIIY9gTGDSooahyqDeGwBgUeBAwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,284,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="367783365" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2014 08:40:09 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9U8e8EO027653 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:40:08 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.250]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 03:40:08 -0500 From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" To: "Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van" Thread-Topic: [CDNi] Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI Thread-Index: AQHP6iLYGpx8XcfS6E60whQ2h/DRapw0h3dQgAT84QCAB7GsAIAHJd6AgABd4YA= Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:40:07 +0000 Message-ID: <63F14A8F-C6CA-4E2A-9936-DB411742E371@cisco.com> References: <703D416B-BA66-4464-900B-EBE592250FD1@cisco.com> <4CBEC72A-522F-42E3-A199-56CC4477E860@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.110.57] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/-CEU4BKB6bnmW2bbCfMCdo1yZuE Cc: "cdni@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CDNi] Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:40:13 -0000 Ray and all, (As an individual) See below: On 30 Oct 2014, at 09:04, Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > Sorry for the late response, I=B9ve been on vacation. I=B9m ok with the > proposal below. The only question I have concerns point 4. Did you guys > consider the option of writing a single RFC with the FCI parts of all fou= r > main CDNI interfaces instead of having separate RFCs for each? That sounds like a very valid option. When we=92re at that point, we can decide between separate RFCs or a common= one (there _may_ be a reason to go fro separate ones because of respective= progress & timing of the different interfaces). Cheers Francois >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Ray >=20 >=20 > On 25/10/14 15:54, "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" > wrote: >=20 >> Hi all, >> Since no objections have been raised, the Working Group is adopting the >> approach described below by Kevin. >>=20 >> To all cdni document authors, >> Please align all documents that are not yet aligned to this approach, if >> at all possible before the Honolulu cut-off date (i.e. Monday 27 October= ). >>=20 >> Thanks you >>=20 >> Francois & Daryl >>=20 >>=20 >> On 20 Oct 2014, at 18:25, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) >> wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi all, >>>=20 >>> As mentioned before, if no objections are raised by 24 October, we=B9ll >>> adopt the approach described below by Kevin. >>>=20 >>> Cheers >>>=20 >>> Francois >>>=20 >>> On 17 Oct 2014, at 19:30, Kevin Ma J wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Hi all, >>>>=20 >>>> The previous question was how to divide up the work of advertisement >>>> of capabilities >>>> (i.e., what logging fields do you support, what metadata/options do >>>> you support, etc.). >>>> Ideally, capability advertisement would be defined with interfaces >>>> themselves, however, >>>> the FCI specifications are not as mature as other (MI/LI/RI/CI) >>>> interfaces. In an effort >>>> to allow progress of those interfaces, as we finish defining FCI, we >>>> propose the following: >>>>=20 >>>> 1. The MI/LI/RI/CI drafts remove any place holders for FCI discussion. >>>> 2. The FCI semantics draft will define the template for FCI objects. >>>> 3. The FCI semantics draft will define a registry for FCI objects. >>>> 4. We will publish separate RFCs describing capability advertisement >>>> for MI/LI/RI/CI. >>>> The FCI objects defined in these RFCs will be registered in the FCI >>>> object registry >>>> created by the FCI semantics draft. >>>>=20 >>>> We believe this provides the best trade-off between expediency and >>>> functionality. >>>>=20 >>>> thanx. >>>>=20 >>>> -- Kevin J. Ma >>>>=20 >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) [mailto:flefauch@cisco.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 11:56 AM >>>>> To: cdni@ietf.org >>>>> Cc: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch); Jon Peterson; Jan Seedorf; Kevin >>>>> Ma J; >>>>> Daryl Malas >>>>> Subject: Dependencies & interactions between FCI and LI/MI/RI/CI >>>>>=20 >>>>> Folks, >>>>>=20 >>>>> During the last IETF meeting we discussed dependencies and >>>>> interactions >>>>> between Fottprint & Capabilities advertisement and the other CDNI >>>>> interfaces >>>>> (Logging, Metadata, Redirection, Control): See excerpt from the >>>>> Toronto CDNI >>>>> minutes at the bottom of this message. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Two options for handling this were presented in Toronto and a >>>>> tentative >>>>> agreement for the second option was reached. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Since then, a bunch of the protagonists (Kevin, Jan, Jon, Daryl, >>>>> Francois) >>>>> continued discuss this and came up with a third Option which we feel >>>>> is a >>>>> better compromise. I have asked Kevin to summarise this third option >>>>> and its >>>>> merits for review and discussion on the list. If no objections are >>>>> raised >>>>> within a week of Kevin describing it, we'd like to adopt this as the >>>>> approach going forward. Some of the LI/MI/RI/CI specs are on hold >>>>> since they >>>>> need to be aligned to the final agreed approach. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Please keep an eye for Kevin's message and raise support or concern >>>>> promptly. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thanks >>>>>=20 >>>>> Francois >>>>> CDNI WG Chair >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D >>>>> FCI Semantics, draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-03: >>>>> Kevin Ma >>>>>=20 >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------= -- >>>>> ----- >>>>> --- >>>>> - Kevin presented the status update >>>>> - Problem presented regarding, "Binary options for Logging/Metadata >>>>> capability >>>>> support is unlikely to be sufficient to describe optional modes." >>>>> (See slide >>>>> 3 for details) >>>>> - Jan S: For things we know right now, binary is sufficient. But for >>>>> future >>>>> extensibility, we need to go beyond binary. Don't know? >>>>> - Francois: Why not possible to avoid dependencies on FCI draft to >>>>> publish >>>>> Metadata and Logging drafts? >>>>> - Kevin: Avoid shadow registries that are for FCI and other CDNI >>>>> interfaces >>>>> (metadata, logging, uri signing) >>>>> - Jan S: Don't need to decide now, WG needs to be aware of the issue >>>>> and >>>>> post comments on ML. Hard to decide right now w/o thinking more about >>>>> it. >>>>> - Daryl: I would like to wrap this up ASAP and get Logging draft >>>>> through >>>>> - Francois: Is there a way to reference the advertisement objects in >>>>> other >>>>> drafts from FCI registry? >>>>> - Kevin: This will block semantics draft, but not the FCI draft >>>>> - Spencer: If you go with binary, and stuck in the future, what would >>>>> you >>>>> do? >>>>> - Kevin/Jon: Rewrite the protocol, not non-backwards compatible >>>>> - Spencer: I don't like that. >>>>> - Jan/Kevin/Jon: More debate ... >>>>> - Francois: Can you update FCI semantics draft so other drafts can >>>>> document >>>>> their own FCI advertisement objects? Give guidance to other drafts. >>>>> - Matt C: My opinion that FCI is done before other drafts. I like >>>>> option 2. >>>>> - Cary Fitzgerald: Seems that you need to do the parsing? >>>>> - Kevin: Duplicate registries are difficult to sync up >>>>> - Kent: Option #2 seems reasonable >>>>> - Ray: Likes option #2 >>>>> - Jan S: Timeframe issue, can FCI semantics be done in time? >>>>> - Jon P: Need to steal stuff to write up FCI semantics >>>>> - Jon P.: Next version of FCI semantics draft can be done by mid-Sept >>>>> - Francois: Now the Logging draft needs to be updated to use the >>>>> semantics >>>>> for advertising of its objects. And there will still be a dependency >>>>> for >>>>> publication. >>>>> - Room rough consensus on #2 to have each draft document its own >>>>> advertisement objects using the FCI semantics >>>>> - Chairs will identify a non-author reviewer for next rev of FCI >>>>> semantics >>>>> draft. >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CDNi mailing list >>> CDNi@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> CDNi mailing list >> CDNi@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni >=20 > This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you= are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you a= re requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no li= ability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it = and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electro= nic transmission of messages. >=20 From nobody Thu Oct 30 02:34:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82201AD06C for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 02:34:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o5TaewltnHdO for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 02:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E5011AD06B for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 02:34:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=144; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414661693; x=1415871293; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=6h4/uima8uglzQrYaoElrlDa95WznTKzs7s2YDQmxjo=; b=gmxV/ma4y/L4qLdXVa4XZwX41RzfqOZGoHXXo1XGOuCSGYtjXyW0QMZz P2kyd4sd/yS8yXCcmnJquMXusX4dfsVQOcGXk0szMGx83T+/JUCxLYvNj IdDmpzEvo5a+0B1FMfYhvwArDiLu3jAN9qImWaYUqCDxP9CnyfDCzMf1o U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmgFAK4EUlStJV2c/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UGj8DjWK/c4hyFgEBAQEBcguECTpRAT5CJwQciDgNo1OkQAwBH5REgR4Fj26CH4tdlj+DeII0gQMBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,284,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="91695041" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2014 09:34:52 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9U9YqfT021918 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:34:52 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.250]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 04:34:51 -0500 From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" To: "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Draft Agenda for IETF-91 CDNI WG Meeting posted Thread-Index: AQHP9CTBIMQq0Wk9HEGabT8wI20vyQ== Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:34:51 +0000 Message-ID: <0B6AB270-055C-48C0-BD15-5E286BB0FEDD@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.110.57] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3396367340460045AFEA3427085E300E@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/hvRTbUO70BKzp890npqk8qjEAAQ Subject: [CDNi] Draft Agenda for IETF-91 CDNI WG Meeting posted X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:34:55 -0000 All, Draft agenda has been uploaded: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/agenda/agenda-91-cdni All comments welcome. Francois & Daryl From nobody Thu Oct 30 08:53:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE451AD496 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:53:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l6JALl38y1Os for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3E731A01C6 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:53:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BLC66770; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:53:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.225) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:53:30 +0000 Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml706-chm ([10.193.5.225]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:53:24 -0700 From: Linda Dunbar To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Thread-Topic: [CDNi] review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 Thread-Index: Ac/y8DQWUuxKHO55R3in4+YFrJp9AQADSuJQABBoKYAARpXqwA== Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:53:24 +0000 Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E28110@dfweml701-chm> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E253F2@dfweml701-chm> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.160] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/3PHdK-qUISCgMsRVzywQFXdhMOE Cc: "draft-ietf-cdni-metadata@tools.ietf.org" , "cdni@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CDNi] review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:53:37 -0000 Ben,=20 Your draft showed JSON model. The same information can be represented by ot= her models, like XML or YANG.=20 Therefore, I think it is better to have a section describing the informatio= n model, and have another section showing JSON data model.=20 Linda=20 -----Original Message----- From: Ben Niven-Jenkins [mailto:ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk]=20 Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:10 PM To: Linda Dunbar Cc: cdni@ietf.org; draft-ietf-cdni-metadata@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [CDNi] review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 Linda, On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:22, Linda Dunbar wrote: > Ben, Rob, Matt, and Kevin, > =20 > Is section 3 meant for "Information Model"? > =20 > I think there should be a section to describe the information model (or U= ML) for the CDNi Meta data before the actual data model. Could you expand a bit on what improvement you think including an informati= on model would add to the document? I don't recall coming across something like that in other protocols specifi= cations. Thanks Ben > =20 > Linda From nobody Thu Oct 30 14:05:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FEA1A87C9 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:05:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Av0nyDC4cGWx for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AD6C1A87CB for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:05:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BOF88967; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:05:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from DFWEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.72) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:05:10 +0000 Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml702-chm ([10.193.5.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:05:04 -0700 From: Linda Dunbar To: Ben Niven-Jenkins Thread-Topic: [CDNi] review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 Thread-Index: Ac/y8DQWUuxKHO55R3in4+YFrJp9AQAUXREAAFB6nxA= Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:05:03 +0000 Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E2858E@dfweml701-chm> References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E252B6@dfweml701-chm> <992C4FEF-BBAD-4C7C-A3DD-BF77530E7E5D@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <992C4FEF-BBAD-4C7C-A3DD-BF77530E7E5D@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.160] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E2858Edfweml701chm_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/E78eqwkDXGLL_osjl43cN6zwDVY Cc: "draft-ietf-cdni-metadata@tools.ietf.org" , "cdni@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CDNi] review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:05:19 -0000 --_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E2858Edfweml701chm_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ben, Thanks for the reply. More suggestions inserted below: -----Original Message----- From: Ben Niven-Jenkins [mailto:ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:29 PM To: Linda Dunbar Cc: cdni@ietf.org; draft-ietf-cdni-metadata@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [CDNi] review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08 Linda, On 28 Oct 2014, at 20:46, Linda Dunbar > wrote: > Ben, Rob, Matt, and Kevin, > > This draft is long and defined a lot of terms: Host Index, Host Match, ho= st-meta-data, Path Match, path-meta-data, generic-metadata-objects, etc. > Is the intent of the draft to define the proper data structure for dCDN t= o request content from upstream CDN? No. The intent is to define data structures for describing how to deliver c= ontent, as well as policies for where is allowed to receive it, etc. [Linda] It would make the document easier to read if you add this statement= to the Introduction Section. The current Abstract section says that the draft also describes the "Protoc= ol for exchange Metadata". I would suggest Section 5 (Leverage existing pro= tocol) to simply "Protocols for exchanging Metadata". In the content, you = can say why you need to leverage the existing protocols. The details of how to obtain the content is only one part of describing how= to deliver the content. > Is the following correct? > > host-meta-data =3D=3D "IP addresses"? host-meta-data isn't used in the document. I'm assuming you are asking what= the value of the host-metadata property is? It is a link to a URI that returns a HostMetadata object which is a JSON ob= ject describing the default CDNI Metadata objects for content served from t= hat host. [Linda] Is there any significance to emphasize on the "Link to a URI" inste= ad simple the "URI"? Do you mean the value of "HostMetadata" is a link to a URI? Thanks, Linda --_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E2858Edfweml701chm_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ben,
 
Thanks for the reply.
 
More suggestions inserted below:
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins [mailto:= ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:29 PM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: cdni@ietf.org; draft-ietf-cdni-metadata@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CDNi] review comments to draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-08
 
Linda,
 
On 28 Oct 2014, at 20:46, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> wrote:
 
> Ben, Rob, Matt, and Kevin,
> 
> This draft is long and defined a lot of terms: Host Index, Host M= atch, host-meta-data, Path Match, path-meta-data, generic-metadata-objects,= etc.
> Is the intent of the draft to define the proper data structure fo= r dCDN to request content from upstream CDN?
 
No. The intent is to define data structures for describing how to deli= ver content, as well as policies for where is allowed to receive it, etc.
 
[Linda] It would make the document easier to r= ead if you add this statement to the Introduction Section.
 
The current Abstract section says that the dra= ft also describes the “Protocol for exchange Metadata”. I would= suggest Section 5 (Leverage existing protocol) to simply “Protocols = for exchanging Metadata”.  In the content, you can say why you need to leverage the existing protocols.
 
 
The details of how to obtain the content is only one part of describin= g how to deliver the content.
 
> Is the following correct?
> 
> host-meta-data =3D=3D “IP addresses”?
 
host-meta-data isn't used in the document. I'm assuming you are asking= what the value of the host-metadata property is?
 
It is a link to a URI that returns a HostMetadata object which is a JS= ON object describing the default CDNI Metadata objects for content served f= rom that host.
 
[Linda] Is there any significance to emphasize= on the “Link to a URI” instead simple the “URI”? <= /font>
Do you mean the value of “HostMetadata&#= 8221; is a link to a URI?
 
 
Thanks, Linda
 
 
 --_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E2858Edfweml701chm_--