From nobody Mon Apr 13 23:42:00 2015 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 059251AC431 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:07:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 gdTm7csdh3Im for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:07:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EF211ACC91 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 15:07:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3260; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1428962836; x=1430172436; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=ISLytJnRVXTJwahm/Zckw+XZEX4WSZWplqCfOr3PJpI=; b=WcxGVE7mBpIQyWhc9D7f4UAOZNj5+RYX8aFQBnb0ZxI6AAUSyhhMYt0L lJ5PyBhVYoqmypwI0fSPvLYDKIAlNaertibhCGHIJ2oS4bQ1In+FESCne PAYAH0uG1QXWsvE+3SvBk5NmHBy8rGue1GBObMnokeBfNt9f8u137NVHn g=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BvBQDmPCxV/4wNJK1cgwxSXAWDEMNXhX+BQUwBAQEBAQF+hCInDwFGLwYCBSECEQI2Fg0BBQIBAYgmDbcLllQBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBAQEBGoEhjjtLgm+BRQWLLolXhhaBHTqCfYJEigeDTSKCAh2Bb1ABgUN/AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,572,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="411498653" Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2015 22:07:15 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3DM7FCD004889 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:07:15 GMT Received: from [10.89.9.212] (10.89.9.212) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (173.37.183.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:07:15 -0500 Message-ID: <552C3E12.50607@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:07:14 -0600 From: =?UTF-8?B?4oyYIE1hdHQgTWlsbGVy?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.89.9.212] Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:41:59 -0700 Cc: cdni@ietf.org Subject: [CDNi] appsdir early review of draft-ietf-cdni-redirection 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, 13 Apr 2015 22:07:22 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate early reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorat e ). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-cdni-redirection Title: Request Routing Redirection Interface for CDN Interconnection Reviewer: Matthew Miller Review Date: 2015-04-13 IETF Last Call Date: N/A IESG Telechat Date: N/A Summary: This draft has minor issues, and is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard once these issues are resolved. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: * In Section 4.2., some of the language about the JSON encoding correctness can be handled by conforming to I-JSON [RFC7493], which this draft already does in spirit. * In Section 4.5.2., it's not clear why the keys "sc(location)", "sc(cache-control)", and "sc()" are different from the other "sc-"-based keys; I would have expected them to be "sc-location", "sc-cache-control", and "sc-". This deviates from the text in Section 4.5 that says "sc- is prefixed to keys for information to be passed by the Server (uCDN) to the Client (User Agent)." I suggest you either change the keys to be "sc-" instead of "sc()", or change the text in Section 4.5 . * In Section 4.7., it seems very odd that all of the error object keys are optional. Is the intent really that the following is valid? "error": {} If it is, then an explanation of when and why that is valid would be very helpful to me. Otherwise, I suggest mandating at least "error-code ". * In Section 5., I would strongly consider referring to draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp (currently in the RFC Editor's Queue), and incorporating its recommendations. I think this draft accomplishes the basics, but I think you get a more complete picture with -tls-bcp. Nits: * The acronym CDN should be expanded in the Abstract. Some might also argue it should be expanded in the title, but not me. * The terms list in Section 2. is editorially a bit awkward to me; I expected there to be hanging indents. In the XML, this can be accomplished by wrapping the new terms' with and placing the attribute hangtext equal to the term for each terms' (e.g., The act of using an application ...) - -- - - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVLD4SAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1e1YH/jzI6xvjn+ykrDOkeN+q5BHz kbeFTEdrWm+/40dBwiBba+8g8A4skBLpXJmGDSC1abSnRgqHDbUsBYfC1FYLKmVL +xzIGTXTNEpRQYT8o9MbHBfCKyCYcSqn0c5n3BhnX0K6Gd7VN7kd15JH6JY0ThQ3 cMHcIw442/m0pakcortH/udNZn7Ki+6et0GxQUfCL3cMiIqo+Zy5CFOPbSZAmJfv /n03QG9FLVrvWNs4kzrBblHJYLz4KLUHUV4qU7J22rcwb5O/pz0pLTDaNu/2MIAh WgH4GZsi8fbHgOu/LTGCnn5V1dytKYWmLgt/rA8F8f+AGF+Tu3Ej/Yl1+wbHKf4= =x56S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Tue Apr 14 00:04:07 2015 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 0AAAD1B349F; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:04:06 -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 N_KBNgLT6MVk; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:04:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E900C1B349B; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:04:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150414070404.23398.72955.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:04:04 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: cdni@ietf.org Subject: [CDNi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-03.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: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:04:06 -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 : URI Signing for CDN Interconnection (CDNI) Authors : Kent Leung Francois Le Faucheur Ray van Brandenburg Bill Downey Michel Fisher Filename : draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-03.txt Pages : 39 Date : 2015-04-14 Abstract: This document describes how the concept of URI signing supports the content access control requirements of CDNI and proposes a URI signing scheme. The proposed URI signing method specifies the information needed to be included in the URI and the algorithm used to authorize and to validate access requests for the content referenced by the URI. Some of the information may be accessed by the CDN via configuration or CDNI metadata. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-03 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 Apr 14 00:09:39 2015 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 4FFC31B34AA for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:09:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.116 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 PPqeSrKU0Yxm for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fromintoutb.tno.nl (fromintoutb.tno.nl [134.221.1.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6B81B34A8 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:09:35 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,574,1422918000"; d="scan'208";a="6890926" Received: from exc-cashub02.tsn.tno.nl (HELO mail.tno.nl) ([134.221.225.221]) by mailhost1b.tno.nl with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2015 09:09:34 +0200 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; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:09:33 +0200 From: "Brandenburg, R. (Ray) van" To: "cdni@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-03.txt Thread-Index: AQHQdoEz7pOofB8cw0yi9zd/WtIgH51MFuYA Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:09:33 +0000 Message-ID: <889F193D-30F7-477F-876F-5911E77CCEB4@tno.nl> References: <20150414070405.23398.3707.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150414070405.23398.3707.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US, nl-NL Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/15.8.2.150328 x-originating-ip: [134.221.225.153] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <8EC6E3F767D8C7439CB9288B79A8E6AB@tno.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Archived-At: Subject: [CDNi] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-03.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: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:09:38 -0000 SGkgYWxsLA0KDQpJ4oCZdmUganVzdCB1cGxvYWRlZCBhIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBVUkkg U2lnbmluZyBkcmFmdC4gVGhpcyB1cGRhdGUgaW5jb3Jwb3JhdGVzIHRoZSBjb21tZW50cyBmcm9t IExlaWYgcmVnYXJkaW5nIHNldHRpbmcgbWF4aW11bSBLZXkgSUQgbGVuZ3RoIChhbmQgaW4gcHJh Y3RpY2UgYWRkaW5nIGEgZGVkaWNhdGVkIG51bWVyaWNhbCBLZXkgSUQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gZWxl bWVudCkuIA0KDQpJdCBhbHNvIGZpeGVzIHNvbWUgcmVmZXJlbmNlcyBhbmQgYWRkcyBzb21lIHRl eHQgdG8gdGhlIHNlY3VyaXR5IGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb25zIHJlZ2FyZGluZyBpbnNlcnRpb24gb2Yg aWxsZWdpdGltYXRlIHB1YmxpYyBrZXlzLiANCg0KTm90ZSB0aGlzIHVwZGF0ZSBkb2VzIG5vdCB5 ZXQgaW5jbHVkZSBhbnkgb2YgdGhlIERBU0gvSExTIHN0dWZmIHdlIHRhbGtlZCBhYm91dCBpbiBE YWxsYXMuDQoNCkJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcywNCg0KUmF5DQoNCg0KDQoNCk9uIDE0LzA0LzE1IDA5OjA0 LCAiaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnIiA8aW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnPiB3 cm90ZToNCg0KPg0KPkEgbmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgSS1ELCBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWNkbmktdXJpLXNp Z25pbmctMDMudHh0DQo+aGFzIGJlZW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBieSBSYXkgdmFu IEJyYW5kZW5idXJnIGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlDQo+SUVURiByZXBvc2l0b3J5Lg0KPg0KPk5h bWU6CQlkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWNkbmktdXJpLXNpZ25pbmcNCj5SZXZpc2lvbjoJMDMNCj5UaXRsZToJ CVVSSSBTaWduaW5nIGZvciBDRE4gSW50ZXJjb25uZWN0aW9uIChDRE5JKQ0KPkRvY3VtZW50IGRh dGU6CTIwMTUtMDQtMTQNCj5Hcm91cDoJCWNkbmkNCj5QYWdlczoJCTM5DQo+VVJMOiAgICAgICAg ICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtY2RuaS11 cmktc2lnbmluZy0wMy50eHQNCj5TdGF0dXM6ICAgICAgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5p ZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1jZG5pLXVyaS1zaWduaW5nLw0KPkh0bWxpemVkOiAgICAg ICBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWNkbmktdXJpLXNpZ25pbmct MDMNCj5EaWZmOiAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9yZmNkaWZmP3VybDI9ZHJh ZnQtaWV0Zi1jZG5pLXVyaS1zaWduaW5nLTAzDQo+DQo+QWJzdHJhY3Q6DQo+ICAgVGhpcyBkb2N1 bWVudCBkZXNjcmliZXMgaG93IHRoZSBjb25jZXB0IG9mIFVSSSBzaWduaW5nIHN1cHBvcnRzIHRo ZQ0KPiAgIGNvbnRlbnQgYWNjZXNzIGNvbnRyb2wgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIG9mIENETkkgYW5kIHBy b3Bvc2VzIGEgVVJJDQo+ICAgc2lnbmluZyBzY2hlbWUuDQo+DQo+ICAgVGhlIHByb3Bvc2VkIFVS SSBzaWduaW5nIG1ldGhvZCBzcGVjaWZpZXMgdGhlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIG5lZWRlZCB0bw0KPiAg IGJlIGluY2x1ZGVkIGluIHRoZSBVUkkgYW5kIHRoZSBhbGdvcml0aG0gdXNlZCB0byBhdXRob3Jp emUgYW5kIHRvDQo+ICAgdmFsaWRhdGUgYWNjZXNzIHJlcXVlc3RzIGZvciB0aGUgY29udGVudCBy ZWZlcmVuY2VkIGJ5IHRoZSBVUkkuICBTb21lDQo+ICAgb2YgdGhlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIG1heSBi ZSBhY2Nlc3NlZCBieSB0aGUgQ0ROIHZpYSBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9uIG9yDQo+ICAgQ0ROSSBtZXRh ZGF0YS4NCj4NCj4gICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgDQo+DQo+DQo+UGxlYXNlIG5vdGUg dGhhdCBpdCBtYXkgdGFrZSBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20gdGhlIHRpbWUgb2Ygc3Vi bWlzc2lvbg0KPnVudGlsIHRoZSBodG1saXplZCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFuZCBkaWZmIGFyZSBhdmFpbGFi bGUgYXQgdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcuDQo+DQo+VGhlIElFVEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCj4NClRoaXMg bWVzc2FnZSBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB0aGF0IGlzIG5vdCBpbnRlbmRlZCBmb3Ig eW91LiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIG5vdCB0aGUgYWRkcmVzc2VlIG9yIGlmIHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSB3YXMg c2VudCB0byB5b3UgYnkgbWlzdGFrZSwgeW91IGFyZSByZXF1ZXN0ZWQgdG8gaW5mb3JtIHRoZSBz ZW5kZXIgYW5kIGRlbGV0ZSB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZS4gVE5PIGFjY2VwdHMgbm8gbGlhYmlsaXR5IGZv ciB0aGUgY29udGVudCBvZiB0aGlzIGUtbWFpbCwgZm9yIHRoZSBtYW5uZXIgaW4gd2hpY2ggeW91 IHVzZSBpdCBhbmQgZm9yIGRhbWFnZSBvZiBhbnkga2luZCByZXN1bHRpbmcgZnJvbSB0aGUgcmlz a3MgaW5oZXJlbnQgdG8gdGhlIGVsZWN0cm9uaWMgdHJhbnNtaXNzaW9uIG9mIG1lc3NhZ2VzLgo= From nobody Tue Apr 14 07:27:00 2015 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 E7EFF1AC3A6; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:26:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 8HJ4_lplR479; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:26:54 -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 0C8361AC39F; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:26:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3383; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429021613; x=1430231213; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=onmkAQx3hctsyZqQVuU8bn2RJedZUabLU4Rfiz4dOF8=; b=SANdB3UJqnRl/c8AKcrN2GPxkzILDIeUTVR4lOE06DYjLR+HXwBcF0cc yAk8ooOM/+ZCuJsZauExabZn6aAxViIyUZTA27iz+433iYmgu178kwvTj w8LFivoFCGkyGy/twEJ17YEcvTbia1hInX5iicbx3nkjDYIjhzBFfeyKu M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BcBADfIi1V/49dJa1cgwxSXAWDEMJRCYFOhgECgUE4FAEBAQEBAQF9hCABAQMBIw8BRQEFCwsUBgIFFgsCAgkDAgECATUQBg0BBwEBiB4IDbVLlXoBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXgSGKCoQxGDMHgmiBRQWLMIlXhhiBHTqCfYJEigeDTSKCAh2Bb1ABgUN/AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,576,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="141064936" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2015 14:26:52 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3EEQq29032238 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:26:52 GMT Received: from [64.101.72.55] (64.101.72.55) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (173.36.12.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:26:51 -0500 Message-ID: <552D23AC.7050703@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 08:26:52 -0600 From: =?UTF-8?B?4oyYIE1hdHQgTWlsbGVy?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <552C3E12.50607@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <552C3E12.50607@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [64.101.72.55] Archived-At: Cc: cdni@ietf.org, IETF Apps Discuss Subject: Re: [CDNi] appsdir early review of draft-ietf-cdni-redirection 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, 14 Apr 2015 14:26:59 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 [ Resending to include apps-discuss ] > I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate early > reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ > ApplicationsAreaDirectorate). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call > comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-cdni-redirection Title: Request Routing > Redirection Interface for CDN Interconnection Reviewer: Matthew > Miller Review Date: 2015-04-13 IETF Last Call Date: N/A IESG > Telechat Date: N/A > > > Summary: This draft has minor issues, and is ready for publication > as a Proposed Standard once these issues are resolved. > > Major Issues: None > > Minor Issues: > > * In Section 4.2., some of the language about the JSON encoding > correctness can be handled by conforming to I-JSON [RFC7493], > which this draft already does in spirit. > > * In Section 4.5.2., it's not clear why the keys "sc(location)", > "sc(cache-control)", and "sc()" are different from the > other "sc-"-based keys; I would have expected them to be > "sc-location", "sc-cache-control", and "sc-". This > deviates from the text in Section 4.5 that says "sc- is prefixed > to keys for information to be passed by the Server (uCDN) to the > Client (User Agent)." I suggest you either change the keys to be > "sc-" instead of "sc()", or change the text in > Section 4.5 . > > * In Section 4.7., it seems very odd that all of the error object > keys are optional. Is the intent really that the following is > valid? > > "error": {} > > If it is, then an explanation of when and why that is valid would > be very helpful to me. Otherwise, I suggest mandating at least > "error-code ". > > * In Section 5., I would strongly consider referring to > draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp (currently in the RFC Editor's Queue), and > incorporating its recommendations. I think this draft > accomplishes the basics, but I think you get a more complete > picture with -tls-bcp. > > Nits: > > * The acronym CDN should be expanded in the Abstract. Some might > also argue it should be expanded in the title, but not me. > > * The terms list in Section 2. is editorially a bit awkward to me; > I expected there to be hanging indents. In the XML, this can be > accomplished by wrapping the new terms' with style='hanging'> and placing the attribute hangtext equal to the > term for each terms' (e.g., The act of using an application ...) > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVLSOsAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1fZ8H/0Ew+qOZGyMz5JnBiFgajGWA JddcGDOKES3wSdO4rwnG0y+D9GRHz/3JYmhDalyo/8MvDSsxQ+Z8vDuN0AEk5dLV QOe/4DR4T10v9z5ZPcwQSEXY3dYSJoXc7Je0f7gw4Dhnp1croQ4o+6Qo8+W7pGwt 7jLzkeeKR8FJ9gPf5sQ0/zPBXf5Nhmgs9d/ZjbzuLVJOIpt77sr09dIwq8k30PaB O3765+dgH0jRjgaZuu7VZU429/TwDE/uaffCG8UcBDXjh6j/7zEgHwTDIwTj+5Ed 3onZ2bha/Q10vGUO7ooaj5jNNB2r1I/P9F4FSk8DMH7ioMP5KEI6e5Bml4z0/8U= =oeMr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Tue Apr 14 12:50:38 2015 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 DC7641B2F98; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 12:50:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 pRyMss1LeMFL; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 12:50:33 -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 97C2E1B2F97; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 12:50:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5037; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429041033; x=1430250633; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=rfDxqDjQ/mOaaWcoP+iLcGLlwt4RlvxiVydqedf19K0=; b=jn1X7TkLV1pGvbpY6atMq8u16F9lmXbKUMU5JzgLB/gZoD8+uVqLIJOG 9jkTGZl+nKzPD/RILR5UzPCME80/IKduuyUxDqAcfqyK36uNCuDs6Ks6g xsBu8pwKF5qx1RUdx25rAPjDaI/vULYV3fUXtoWpE4jOJzsDQp0JV1Icg I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AYBQA3by1V/5xdJa1cgwxSXAWDEMQvhX+BSzsRAQEBAQEBAX2EIicPAUUBLwYCBRYLAgsDAgECAUsBDAEFAgEBiCYNtXiWAAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEZgSGPBoJvgUUFizCJV4YYgR06gn2CRIoHg00iggIdgW9QAYFDfwEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,577,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="141229904" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2015 19:50:12 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3EJoBTD019144 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 19:50:11 GMT Received: from [64.101.72.55] (64.101.72.55) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (173.36.12.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:50:11 -0500 Message-ID: <552D6F72.7060901@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:50:10 -0600 From: =?UTF-8?B?4oyYIE1hdHQgTWlsbGVy?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [64.101.72.55] Archived-At: Cc: IETF Apps Discuss Subject: [CDNi] Appsdir early review of draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-09 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, 14 Apr 2015 19:50:36 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate early reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorat e ). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-cdni-metadata Title: CDN Interconnection Metadata Reviewer: Matthew Miller Review Date: 2015-04-14 IETF Last Call Date: N/A IESG Telechat Date: N/A Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as a Proposed Standard and should be revised. Comments: This draft is written expecting multiple encodings in the future, then spends very little space discussing the one encoding that is defined (JSON). The end result is a document that, in my opinion, is too abstract. I think it would be more understandable if this draft mentioned and used JSON throughout (e.g., a micro-example for each of the defined types). I think it's appropriate to do this and yet still reserve the right to support other encoding formats in the future. Also, this draft is not very internally consistent (e.g., terminology usage, editorial structuring, etc.), which I found made it hard to follow at times. I would recommend that the authors do a round of editing to be more internally consistent; I've noted in the nits a number of specific examples. Major Issues: * I think Section 6.4.2. is underspecified. There are a number of quirks and gotchas I noticed that are not discussed: - dealing with large (requiring more than ~53 bits) integers (encode as JSON String) - dealing with duplicate keys within a JSON Object (MUST NOT have duplicates) - dealing with escaping (see Minor Issue #2) I note that the examples in 6.4.2.1. illustrate some of the concerns, but nowhere are they explicitly discussed. I would strongly recommend outlining these concerns, better would be to refer to RFC 7492 (I-JSON) and follow its recommendations explicitly. I don't think this is much of a burden since this document appears to already follow them implicitly. Minor Issues: * In Section 3.1., I find Table 2 hard to follow. I suggest each row be broken out to its own item in an unordered list. It would also help to point to each item's full definition. * In Section 4.1.5., note that '\' must be escaped as '\\' in JSON, which means the JSON string for a with a literal '\' would have '\\\\' (this also applies for literal '?' and '*'). I can understand why an alternative form of escaping, such as percent encoding, would be undesirable, but it will be surprising to some to see this "extra escaping". This effect on pattern escaping ought to be called out; if not in Section 4.1.5. then I suggest in Section 6.4.2. * Sections 8.2., 8.3., and 8.5., seem to cover the concerns, but I would recommend reviewing and referencing draf-ietf-uta-tls-bcp, as I think you would get a more complete picture here. Nits: * In Abstract, CDN is not expanded on first occurrence. * In Abstract, CDNI is not expanded on first occurrence. * In Section 1.2., dCDN is not expanded on first occurrence. * In Section 1.2., uCDN is not expanded on first occurrence. * Reference to HTTPv1.1 (commonly referred to as "HTTP/1.1") (RFC7230, et al) comes very late (Section 7.2.), first noted in Section 1.2. * No reference to HTTPv2.0 (often referred to as "http/2") (draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17), first noted in Section 1.2. * Reference to HTTP over TLS (RFC 2818) comes very late (Section 7.2.), first noted in Section 1.2. * No reference to JSON (RFC 7159), first noted in Section 2. * In Section 3.2., the two tables are not captioned. * In Section 4.2.4.1., "protocol" is not capitalized (i.e., "Protocol") like other type references in "Type: List of protocol object s" * In Section 6. and many of its subsections, "Downstream CDN" is often used instead of "dCDN", which is elsewhere in this document. I would recommend more consistency and use "dCDN". * In Section 6. and many of its subsections, "Upstream CDN" is often used instead of "uCDN", which is elsewhere in this document. I would recommend more consistency and use "uCDN". - -- - - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVLW9yAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1g9UIAJIV8yShj/0KiqhC82m/ixk6 VkW5IZvB8iWp9mVStx+fQtwwm1B7LrvccFnSr5CwmyURjmaljSBKP97F6I/QnjpL 6YJkfGyRLTP1r/fpH7N9ptpHZJQpNd5iQlBElWforfBaNHd5xm4mhLkCzlv8UKjk TP8SDYeW5pKvUkHtK7fhW7h2eTcs/EuPZr/GlTb9yIWQAAwN0q7JTnwXVN1Lo9uQ ap1mqUnG2YdZMuAKqrDUQRywazIuBGPu8DopbKX6Hl9fyuSEnPUry73P+7aK727x T+/qHyARqy5PGSgesRYAQdFy3gS4/8SeeYWHpkE+7MPSjTNj4nTralxfcu7uxAU= =+QNl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nobody Mon Apr 20 09:56:32 2015 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 DF7A71A002D; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:56:29 -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 pUKlIYnh-K0H; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:56:28 -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 990C21A0113; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:55:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1334; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429548940; x=1430758540; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=sN8ZxsxYekccAB+QgRpdAAHrAMZDOP22pzp7jfcdJgo=; b=Xx5XkUaC8Cf54uDBtVzFwWIQp8dkZwp4PviBh6O+jEoCb9Whk/pm4sFe 3kpxaBPsgNBpbvWorgSxQnDdIcE3saMpcfmp1est3S7E4Q27l9Y/bBHWB aa2AVxYAsR3JJQlSeqNi3HdA7vf17ifdvtgFa0n+s80Jcs926L4e6805P 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AYBQDILjVV/51dJa1bgwxSXAXEaYI+hgMCgTdMAQEBAQEBfoQgAQEBAwE6MQ4FCwIBCBgeECERJQIEDgUJiA4DCQgNxR8NhSIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGYs3gk0XgT0RAR4zAgUCgxWBFgWGMIp7g3yEV4FOgR86gwKKAIJ5g04ig3NvAYEKOYEAAQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,610,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="413288606" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Apr 2015 16:55:39 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3KGtckj012852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:55:38 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.220]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:55:38 -0500 From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" To: Kathleen Moriarty Thread-Topic: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-cdni-logging-18: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AQHQe4oxlvb2hMuGS0im7YYikL2FJJ1WcmIA Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:55:37 +0000 Message-ID: <9582CB02-4851-4F05-B519-7ECBC0D93E81@cisco.com> References: <20150420165056.16800.11611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150420165056.16800.11611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.61.80.209] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5A34881806503B44B094F51BA9EFB7CF@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-cdni-logging@ietf.org" , The IESG , "cdni@ietf.org" , "cdni-chairs@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CDNi] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-cdni-logging-18: (with DISCUSS) 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 Apr 2015 16:56:30 -0000 Noted. Thanks Francois > On 20 Apr 2015, at 18:50, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >=20 > Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-cdni-logging-18: Discuss >=20 > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) >=20 >=20 > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >=20 >=20 > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-logging/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > Thanks for your work on this draft. I'll clear on my prior discusses, > for the first one, I would have preferred my suggested text over what you > wound up with from the SecDir review after I had provided the suggestion > just because I think it covers the points a bit more cleanly. >=20 > I'm just leaving a discuss here to make sure Pete's points get covered, > but I am not an ABNF expert. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 From nobody Mon Apr 20 10:40:01 2015 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 070601B2C54; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:39:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 6Wun8SV3LhsA; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x234.google.com (mail-ig0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C0671A8ABD; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igblo3 with SMTP id lo3so66638357igb.0; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:39:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=RWhr8j+esbt/BWPXh9pIng66p/JrmGPajWT8mCn0qwc=; b=GD20xkPD6LJL3TJyFthlJrK2hTaqe/spYzxWvMyNyfRPqkrwgB+KKt4AvT5tjs79ku m1+Ae4TROTvRJfrmINonPQA3KXOW1UC5Q15tDyNl7zZd3SaHfui+W/9qX78ztZ2jx93S d9hsyFouuVNzpGwqZrK7Rkz9gStY68q/9npG8swjWhoUkVmyCPotJdgnPCawQMUIQorx R2cnTsDCk60bm8d/WFtXEHmdbYW7i1tSqkHIs1eCM/Ug8JWGcuytRai7sgiPrw8zfSYA AwNygwvvXVBObLoS53iop5H+el3VpelJGrc/aA6Y167fWR0K0rhI+5c5UItAWWJQJLK2 wxgw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.29.21 with SMTP id d21mr20261231iod.11.1429551597812; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.7.130 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:39:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150420165056.16800.11611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20150420165056.16800.11611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:39:57 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 93HImp4tjyA8R_p_EjtDmPHkqiw Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Kathleen Moriarty Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: draft-ietf-cdni-logging@ietf.org, The IESG , cdni@ietf.org, cdni-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CDNi] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-cdni-logging-18: (with DISCUSS) 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 Apr 2015 17:39:59 -0000 > I'm just leaving a discuss here to make sure Pete's points get covered, > but I am not an ABNF expert. Yes, and I'll be checking the ABNF -- Kathleen, do you want me to take over the DISCUSS? That probably makes sense. Authors, does the latest version address the ABNF issues that Pete raised (that is, should I check it now)? Barry From nobody Mon Apr 20 11:04:30 2015 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 61EDE1B2CC1; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:04:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 OAkwDu4O1lTh; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x234.google.com (mail-ig0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D6461B2CBE; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbhj9 with SMTP id hj9so67809605igb.1; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:04:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=lpokIFDeN+uJyzolycpdd+egQP8Ix+diZ9VFuSgHtKs=; b=Cc70Q+ZXzDIWjP+R2DNviupT0W5f1hpEIuVUAzX/0vTSo7VxTHrQUd5KCh3RnHjd7b aYJPFESrJkQOIi8yQ7QHZ87jNHcHAft60nnc1yBV/B93QajAy6Rkk4aWecLGhbg8/94L 7s7jDpf5iVMwQkCcAN+6K7Mpt8oTz1+B+cH+uWRtCitLbClPReGSkYZjQLeLM/XQW+Au fbJtu1Kl1iRaQ4avw5M82ulo3Ccj8dwhb4Pw3PhmOPO7iEGk9GiW8/VC/usEuuP0pdzM Q4cIj9UQ9MIMmw12sDtBi2AjZXStGhZU+8QlxAFKMefjh83RS5wbNxpgQ80YXj81BqTF wgPA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.29.21 with SMTP id d21mr20408113iod.11.1429553067897; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.7.130 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:04:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150420165056.16800.11611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:04:27 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: k9T2BeypSK_NWwICBedWGSKC8zM Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Kathleen Moriarty Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Archived-At: Cc: draft-ietf-cdni-logging@ietf.org, The IESG , "cdni@ietf.org" , cdni-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [CDNi] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-cdni-logging-18: (with DISCUSS) 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 Apr 2015 18:04:29 -0000 >> > I'm just leaving a discuss here to make sure Pete's points get covered, >> > but I am not an ABNF expert. >> >> Yes, and I'll be checking the ABNF -- Kathleen, do you want me to take >> over the DISCUSS? That probably makes sense. > > Yes, please! I just didn't want it to get dropped. OK: I have it; you can release. b From nobody Tue Apr 21 00:09:10 2015 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 3E2F11B369E; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:09:08 -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 WPy79ZupDlkV; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:09:07 -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 10BE81B3697; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 00:09:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=301; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429600147; x=1430809747; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=jU4dw1NFgCFsi37Sav2+r4To3KfUfyKpKP3HUxoEcZ0=; b=LhUy/Sw5uVWBGu9A58fxmDNL6QOLU4of2TAU3UsTprpKZ73RkGkSIGfV 2LPtVCNRoQ4/Zw/P9gIsRGgweZeu6mlErqKo76IVJTqj94YeozQV6J3BE KzpJHxyUTyBUyO8QzFpzhwtKV2GVUsVSy/xcohQKWul/ycJ0okJUOt1rO 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C3BABA9jVV/5hdJa1bgwmBLgXFJWYJh1MCgT44FAEBAQEBAQF9hCABAQEDAXkFCwIBCBguMiUCBA4FiCMIyXQBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXizeFBAeDF4EWAQSLDYYeiiEBlSEig3NvgUSBAAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,614,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="143010527" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Apr 2015 07:09:06 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3L7966a005879 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:09:06 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.220]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 02:09:06 -0500 From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" To: Barry Leiba Thread-Topic: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-cdni-logging-18: (with DISCUSS) Thread-Index: AQHQe5EElvb2hMuGS0im7YYikL2FJJ1XYMWA Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 07:09:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20150420165056.16800.11611.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.161.198] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <0FF8612773F3F54D8FDB24DA4408188D@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "cdni@ietf.org" , "cdni-chairs@ietf.org" , Kathleen Moriarty , The IESG , "draft-ietf-cdni-logging@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CDNi] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-cdni-logging-18: (with DISCUSS) 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, 21 Apr 2015 07:09:08 -0000 Hello Barry, > On 20 Apr 2015, at 19:39, Barry Leiba wrote: >=20 >=20 > Authors, does the latest version address the ABNF issues that Pete > raised (that is, should I check it now)? No not yet.=20 It is on my To Do list.=20 Thanks Francois >=20 > Barry From nobody Tue Apr 21 09:02:32 2015 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 CA14B1ACF57; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:02:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 lze6YFqmtnyH; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15871ACF59; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host4.velocix.com ([81.134.152.4] helo=macbook-pro.corp.velocix.com) by smtp04.mailcore.me with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Ykad0-00062p-H2; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:02:26 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <552D23AC.7050703@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 17:02:24 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <155E6729-DB7E-4934-B447-9A8D2D7A68C1@niven-jenkins.co.uk> References: <552C3E12.50607@cisco.com> <552D23AC.7050703@cisco.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?=E2=8C=98_Matt_Miller?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Archived-At: Cc: "" , cdni@ietf.org, IETF Apps Discuss Subject: Re: [CDNi] [apps-discuss] appsdir early review of draft-ietf-cdni-redirection 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, 21 Apr 2015 16:02:31 -0000 Hi Matt, Thanks for the review, some responses inline. > On 14 Apr 2015, at 15:26, =E2=8C=98 Matt Miller = wrote: >=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 >=20 > [ Resending to include apps-discuss ] >=20 >> Minor Issues: >>=20 >> * In Section 4.2., some of the language about the JSON encoding=20 >> correctness can be handled by conforming to I-JSON [RFC7493], >> which this draft already does in spirit. I'm not sure it results in being able to remove much text from Section = 4.2 because from a quick scan of RFC7493 the only overlap is both = documents state the JSON object MUST NOT contain duplicate keys/names = but I'm OK with adding a reference to I-JSON e.g.=20 OLD: The body of RI requests and responses is a JSON object [RFC7159] = containing a dictionary of key:value pairs. NEW: The body of RI requests and responses is a JSON object [RFC7159] that = MUST conform to [RFC7493] containing a dictionary of key:value pairs. >> * In Section 4.5.2., it's not clear why the keys "sc(location)",=20 >> "sc(cache-control)", and "sc()" are different from the=20 >> other "sc-"-based keys; I would have expected them to be=20 >> "sc-location", "sc-cache-control", and "sc-". This=20 >> deviates from the text in Section 4.5 that says "sc- is prefixed >> to keys for information to be passed by the Server (uCDN) to the=20 >> Client (User Agent)." I suggest you either change the keys to be=20 >> "sc-" instead of "sc()", or change the text in=20 >> Section 4.5 . The keys sc(location), sc(cache-control) and sc() are = different to the other sc- keys because their values encode the values = of HTTP headers, whereas the values of the other sc- keys encode = information about the HTTP request/response that are not sent in HTTP = headers (method, version, etc). [Actually sc(location) and sc(cache-control) aren't special but are = specific instances of sc() called out as they are likely to = be of particular interest for the use case of redirection between CDNs.] The thinking of putting the header name in () was to avoid possible = clashes, e.g. if someone wanted to return a HTTP Header called "status" = they wouldn't be able to do so because sc-status is already used for = carrying the HTTP response's status code. The simple fix would be to change sc() to sc-() = so we avoid any potential clash and the format of the key is aligned = with section 4.5 that says they start sc- (and do the same for the cs- = keys too). >> * In Section 4.7., it seems very odd that all of the error object=20 >> keys are optional. Is the intent really that the following is=20 >> valid? >>=20 >> "error": {} >>=20 >> If it is, then an explanation of when and why that is valid would=20 >> be very helpful to me. Otherwise, I suggest mandating at least=20 >> "error-code ". Good catch, will change so that error-code is mandatory. >> * In Section 5., I would strongly consider referring to=20 >> draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp (currently in the RFC Editor's Queue), and=20 >> incorporating its recommendations. I think this draft >> accomplishes the basics, but I think you get a more complete >> picture with -tls-bcp. There are some discussions ongoing in the CDNI WG on referencing = draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp instead of articulating specific requirements in = each of the CDNI specifications and we plan to align = draft-ietf-cdni-redirection with the CDNI WG consensus for that text, = which looks likely to end up being a reference to = draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp. >>=20 >> Nits: >>=20 >> * The acronym CDN should be expanded in the Abstract. Some might=20 >> also argue it should be expanded in the title, but not me. Thanks, will expand. >> * The terms list in Section 2. is editorially a bit awkward to me; >> I expected there to be hanging indents. In the XML, this can be=20 >> accomplished by wrapping the new terms' with > style=3D'hanging'> and placing the attribute hangtext equal to the=20 >> term for each terms' (e.g., > Redirection:">The act of using an application ...) Thanks, will try this in the next revision. Ben >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) > Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org >=20 > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVLSOsAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1fZ8H/0Ew+qOZGyMz5JnBiFgajGWA > JddcGDOKES3wSdO4rwnG0y+D9GRHz/3JYmhDalyo/8MvDSsxQ+Z8vDuN0AEk5dLV > QOe/4DR4T10v9z5ZPcwQSEXY3dYSJoXc7Je0f7gw4Dhnp1croQ4o+6Qo8+W7pGwt > 7jLzkeeKR8FJ9gPf5sQ0/zPBXf5Nhmgs9d/ZjbzuLVJOIpt77sr09dIwq8k30PaB > O3765+dgH0jRjgaZuu7VZU429/TwDE/uaffCG8UcBDXjh6j/7zEgHwTDIwTj+5Ed > 3onZ2bha/Q10vGUO7ooaj5jNNB2r1I/P9F4FSk8DMH7ioMP5KEI6e5Bml4z0/8U=3D > =3DoeMr > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >=20 > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From nobody Thu Apr 23 08:04:13 2015 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 82B6B1A92FE; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:04:11 -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 KlSA-Et_KBvz; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D3B81AC3A7; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:03:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.1.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150423150346.10690.16117.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:03:46 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: cdni@ietf.org Subject: [CDNi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-09.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: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:04:11 -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-09.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2015-04-23 Abstract: The Request Routing Interface comprises of (1) the asynchronous advertisement of footprint and capabilities by a downstream Content Delivery Network (CDN) that allows an 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-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-09 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 Thu Apr 23 08:10:46 2015 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 77CD11AC3CC; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:10:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 SLzP5Ixv5MWG; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5A31AC3DF; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dab-glb1-h-1-8.dab.02.net ([82.132.218.244] helo=[172.20.10.4]) by smtp04.mailcore.me with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YlIlS-0007P7-Kc; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:10:23 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Ben Niven-Jenkins In-Reply-To: <155E6729-DB7E-4934-B447-9A8D2D7A68C1@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:10:03 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <552C3E12.50607@cisco.com> <552D23AC.7050703@cisco.com> <155E6729-DB7E-4934-B447-9A8D2D7A68C1@niven-jenkins.co.uk> To: =?utf-8?Q?=E2=8C=98_Matt_Miller?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544 X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912 Archived-At: Cc: "" , cdni@ietf.org, IETF Apps Discuss Subject: Re: [CDNi] [apps-discuss] appsdir early review of draft-ietf-cdni-redirection 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 Apr 2015 15:10:43 -0000 Hi Matt, Following up on my previous email, FYI I pushed out a -09 version of = draft-ietf-cdni-redirection which I believe addresses all of your = comments except the security considerations (which I will change once = consensus is reached in the CDNI WG on appropriate text). New draft here: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-09.txt Diff from -08 here: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-cdni-redirection-09 Ben > On 21 Apr 2015, at 17:02, Ben Niven-Jenkins = wrote: >=20 > Hi Matt, >=20 > Thanks for the review, some responses inline. >=20 >> On 14 Apr 2015, at 15:26, =E2=8C=98 Matt Miller = wrote: >>=20 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA512 >>=20 >> [ Resending to include apps-discuss ] >>=20 >>> Minor Issues: >>>=20 >>> * In Section 4.2., some of the language about the JSON encoding=20 >>> correctness can be handled by conforming to I-JSON [RFC7493], >>> which this draft already does in spirit. >=20 > I'm not sure it results in being able to remove much text from Section = 4.2 because from a quick scan of RFC7493 the only overlap is both = documents state the JSON object MUST NOT contain duplicate keys/names = but I'm OK with adding a reference to I-JSON e.g.=20 >=20 > OLD: > The body of RI requests and responses is a JSON object [RFC7159] = containing a dictionary of key:value pairs. >=20 > NEW: > The body of RI requests and responses is a JSON object [RFC7159] that = MUST conform to [RFC7493] containing a dictionary of key:value pairs. >=20 >>> * In Section 4.5.2., it's not clear why the keys "sc(location)",=20 >>> "sc(cache-control)", and "sc()" are different from the=20= >>> other "sc-"-based keys; I would have expected them to be=20 >>> "sc-location", "sc-cache-control", and "sc-". This=20 >>> deviates from the text in Section 4.5 that says "sc- is prefixed >>> to keys for information to be passed by the Server (uCDN) to the=20 >>> Client (User Agent)." I suggest you either change the keys to be=20 >>> "sc-" instead of "sc()", or change the text in=20 >>> Section 4.5 . >=20 > The keys sc(location), sc(cache-control) and sc() are = different to the other sc- keys because their values encode the values = of HTTP headers, whereas the values of the other sc- keys encode = information about the HTTP request/response that are not sent in HTTP = headers (method, version, etc). >=20 > [Actually sc(location) and sc(cache-control) aren't special but are = specific instances of sc() called out as they are likely to = be of particular interest for the use case of redirection between CDNs.] >=20 > The thinking of putting the header name in () was to avoid possible = clashes, e.g. if someone wanted to return a HTTP Header called "status" = they wouldn't be able to do so because sc-status is already used for = carrying the HTTP response's status code. >=20 > The simple fix would be to change sc() to = sc-() so we avoid any potential clash and the format of the = key is aligned with section 4.5 that says they start sc- (and do the = same for the cs- keys too). >=20 >>> * In Section 4.7., it seems very odd that all of the error object=20 >>> keys are optional. Is the intent really that the following is=20 >>> valid? >>>=20 >>> "error": {} >>>=20 >>> If it is, then an explanation of when and why that is valid would=20 >>> be very helpful to me. Otherwise, I suggest mandating at least=20 >>> "error-code ". >=20 > Good catch, will change so that error-code is mandatory. >=20 >>> * In Section 5., I would strongly consider referring to=20 >>> draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp (currently in the RFC Editor's Queue), and=20 >>> incorporating its recommendations. I think this draft >>> accomplishes the basics, but I think you get a more complete >>> picture with -tls-bcp. >=20 > There are some discussions ongoing in the CDNI WG on referencing = draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp instead of articulating specific requirements in = each of the CDNI specifications and we plan to align = draft-ietf-cdni-redirection with the CDNI WG consensus for that text, = which looks likely to end up being a reference to = draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp. >=20 >>>=20 >>> Nits: >>>=20 >>> * The acronym CDN should be expanded in the Abstract. Some might=20 >>> also argue it should be expanded in the title, but not me. >=20 > Thanks, will expand. >=20 >>> * The terms list in Section 2. is editorially a bit awkward to me; >>> I expected there to be hanging indents. In the XML, this can be=20 >>> accomplished by wrapping the new terms' with >> style=3D'hanging'> and placing the attribute hangtext equal to the=20= >>> term for each terms' (e.g., >> Redirection:">The act of using an application ...) >=20 > Thanks, will try this in the next revision. >=20 > Ben >=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) >> Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org >>=20 >> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVLSOsAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1fZ8H/0Ew+qOZGyMz5JnBiFgajGWA >> JddcGDOKES3wSdO4rwnG0y+D9GRHz/3JYmhDalyo/8MvDSsxQ+Z8vDuN0AEk5dLV >> QOe/4DR4T10v9z5ZPcwQSEXY3dYSJoXc7Je0f7gw4Dhnp1croQ4o+6Qo8+W7pGwt >> 7jLzkeeKR8FJ9gPf5sQ0/zPBXf5Nhmgs9d/ZjbzuLVJOIpt77sr09dIwq8k30PaB >> O3765+dgH0jRjgaZuu7VZU429/TwDE/uaffCG8UcBDXjh6j/7zEgHwTDIwTj+5Ed >> 3onZ2bha/Q10vGUO7ooaj5jNNB2r1I/P9F4FSk8DMH7ioMP5KEI6e5Bml4z0/8U=3D >> =3DoeMr >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> apps-discuss mailing list >> apps-discuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss >=20 From nobody Thu Apr 23 08:45:46 2015 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 1CF6E1ACD8A; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:45:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.611 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 SeSp16whxxX4; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:45:43 -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 E4AEE1B30C6; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6160; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1429803901; x=1431013501; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hJhQYxnb/nuKSEdTJ29vSas1HscKcau5HwGnJiARgUA=; b=GnDH6DDiV5iBZt/JRAFRvoHyMlMSognWH+z4flaZxQWkcA2TvhFwDDNf +xEztxWSBPrkEjpcpPXzuCn93pNq466p9XTKYHpFmPpqyDbrmvp0+l6ZR OAbosv0OVJXvQhyyGCnzvbUKjvFeqf+uSXjTjaU+ndkbodIwpy+1mY6uk 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BZBAApEjlV/5pdJa1bgwxSVwUFgxXDCgmBRwqGBAKBNjgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCEBAQQBAQEgDwE7CgEQCxgCAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBFSAQBg0BBQIBAQWIIggFt3SUZgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAReBIYoWhCERAQYYMweCaIFFBYtUg1aGIYY0gSKGFIpHg04jgWUhHYFwUAGBCjmBAAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,631,1422921600"; d="scan'208";a="143923761" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Apr 2015 15:45:00 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t3NFj0KA004724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:45:00 GMT Received: from [64.101.72.55] (64.101.72.55) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (173.36.12.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:45:00 -0500 Message-ID: <5539137A.5090802@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:44:58 -0600 From: =?UTF-8?B?4oyYIE1hdHQgTWlsbGVy?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Niven-Jenkins References: <552C3E12.50607@cisco.com> <552D23AC.7050703@cisco.com> <155E6729-DB7E-4934-B447-9A8D2D7A68C1@niven-jenkins.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [64.101.72.55] Archived-At: Cc: "" , cdni@ietf.org, IETF Apps Discuss Subject: Re: [CDNi] [apps-discuss] appsdir early review of draft-ietf-cdni-redirection 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 Apr 2015 15:45:45 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Thanks Ben. All of your suggested changes below look good, and I'll review -09 as my earliest chance. - -- - - m&m Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > Cisco Systems, Inc. On 4/23/15 9:10 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: > Hi Matt, > > Following up on my previous email, FYI I pushed out a -09 version > of draft-ietf-cdni-redirection which I believe addresses all of > your comments except the security considerations (which I will > change once consensus is reached in the CDNI WG on appropriate > text). > > New draft here: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-09.txt > > Diff from -08 here: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-09 > > > Ben > > >> On 21 Apr 2015, at 17:02, Ben Niven-Jenkins >> wrote: >> >> Hi Matt, >> >> Thanks for the review, some responses inline. >> >>> On 14 Apr 2015, at 15:26, ⌘ Matt Miller >>> wrote: >>> > [ Resending to include apps-discuss ] > >>>>> Minor Issues: >>>>> >>>>> * In Section 4.2., some of the language about the JSON >>>>> encoding correctness can be handled by conforming to I-JSON >>>>> [RFC7493], which this draft already does in spirit. >>> >>> I'm not sure it results in being able to remove much text from >>> Section 4.2 because from a quick scan of RFC7493 the only >>> overlap is both documents state the JSON object MUST NOT >>> contain duplicate keys/names but I'm OK with adding a reference >>> to I-JSON e.g. >>> >>> OLD: The body of RI requests and responses is a JSON object >>> [RFC7159] containing a dictionary of key:value pairs. >>> >>> NEW: The body of RI requests and responses is a JSON object >>> [RFC7159] that MUST conform to [RFC7493] containing a >>> dictionary of key:value pairs. >>> >>>>> * In Section 4.5.2., it's not clear why the keys >>>>> "sc(location)", "sc(cache-control)", and "sc()" >>>>> are different from the other "sc-"-based keys; I would have >>>>> expected them to be "sc-location", "sc-cache-control", and >>>>> "sc-". This deviates from the text in Section >>>>> 4.5 that says "sc- is prefixed to keys for information to >>>>> be passed by the Server (uCDN) to the Client (User Agent)." >>>>> I suggest you either change the keys to be "sc-" >>>>> instead of "sc()", or change the text in Section 4.5 >>>>> . >>> >>> The keys sc(location), sc(cache-control) and sc() >>> are different to the other sc- keys because their values encode >>> the values of HTTP headers, whereas the values of the other sc- >>> keys encode information about the HTTP request/response that >>> are not sent in HTTP headers (method, version, etc). >>> >>> [Actually sc(location) and sc(cache-control) aren't special but >>> are specific instances of sc() called out as they >>> are likely to be of particular interest for the use case of >>> redirection between CDNs.] >>> >>> The thinking of putting the header name in () was to avoid >>> possible clashes, e.g. if someone wanted to return a HTTP >>> Header called "status" they wouldn't be able to do so because >>> sc-status is already used for carrying the HTTP response's >>> status code. >>> >>> The simple fix would be to change sc() to >>> sc-() so we avoid any potential clash and the >>> format of the key is aligned with section 4.5 that says they >>> start sc- (and do the same for the cs- keys too). >>> >>>>> * In Section 4.7., it seems very odd that all of the error >>>>> object keys are optional. Is the intent really that the >>>>> following is valid? >>>>> >>>>> "error": {} >>>>> >>>>> If it is, then an explanation of when and why that is valid >>>>> would be very helpful to me. Otherwise, I suggest >>>>> mandating at least "error-code ". >>> >>> Good catch, will change so that error-code is mandatory. >>> >>>>> * In Section 5., I would strongly consider referring to >>>>> draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp (currently in the RFC Editor's >>>>> Queue), and incorporating its recommendations. I think >>>>> this draft accomplishes the basics, but I think you get a >>>>> more complete picture with -tls-bcp. >>> >>> There are some discussions ongoing in the CDNI WG on >>> referencing draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp instead of articulating >>> specific requirements in each of the CDNI specifications and we >>> plan to align draft-ietf-cdni-redirection with the CDNI WG >>> consensus for that text, which looks likely to end up being a >>> reference to draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp. >>> >>>>> >>>>> Nits: >>>>> >>>>> * The acronym CDN should be expanded in the Abstract. Some >>>>> might also argue it should be expanded in the title, but >>>>> not me. >>> >>> Thanks, will expand. >>> >>>>> * The terms list in Section 2. is editorially a bit awkward >>>>> to me; I expected there to be hanging indents. In the XML, >>>>> this can be accomplished by wrapping the new terms' >>>>> with and placing the attribute >>>>> hangtext equal to the term for each terms' (e.g., >>>> hangtext="Application Level Redirection:">The act of using >>>>> an application ...) >>> >>> Thanks, will try this in the next revision. >>> >>> Ben >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ apps-discuss >>> mailing list apps-discuss@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVORN6AAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1vlcH/1QZa7dkCjK0LIvHV1rvxQGr MIcXoZAOf1xFHHAYjof+7YBWpvT5W1zIVfJ7ai1Bw8LD0x+1uRh3GiitaITx3Zfa 5cD10WQ0BWaEPbVM1XkZlUdt//Bln9dLsmLpOEnVICxMJzK+0tMCMV6leqrzP7Qt 4kqkf59gfKt8qU20DkcUvgGFQ+F4/yuX9rn/bbX+jHVKTKihyAC2BTu2Xb1hWFjP cjyvhFnp4AdcmIumzQYQBrLmVh9vzoMgoL0QwYlqLix4rVVNz/SIa8ETGnelceSN VC95/rqSyLAI9WDDUU0g+p9MxWjnChKAHD0lxbKYOLJP7wZj3xoCcFCHfQI/gXk= =Wfdi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----