Content Distribution Internetworking BoF (CDNP)
Minutes taken by firstname.lastname@example.org.
BoF Chair was Mark Day, Cisco (email@example.com).
Bash agenda, find note taker
Explain domain, summarize drafts
Present draft charter
Overview slides also available at
Overview presentations by Gary Tomlinson, Entera, Phil Rzewski, Inktomi. Discussion of what is Content Networking. Content Networks defined to include heirarchical caching. CDNs defined to include request routing and surrogates. Content Distribution Internetworking defined as interconnecting different CDN clouds. Surrogates defined to be a delivery server other than the origin. Delivery defined as the act of presenting content to the consumer. Distribution defined as the activitiy of moving a publisher's content from its origin to one or more surrogates. Injection defined as publishing content into one or more CDNs by origin. Request-routing defined to mean finding a suitable surrogate. Accouting defined to mean measuring and recording distribution.
Two teams produced 8 of 9 drafts. Teams aligned with Content Bridge and Content Alliance. Have worked out most issues.
Summary of drafts followed: -model- includes taxonomy, -scenarios- has requirements, -architecture- describes elements and systems, -known-request-routing- describes what people are currently doing for redirection, -aaa-reqs- describes anticipated AAA requirements for accounting, -oacp- describes a specific vertical implmentation of how (CB) system works, -cndistcs- describes what signalling CB system needs, -cnacct- describes how CB accounting works, -dnsmap-peer- proposes a particular DNS-based peering mechanism.
Possible working group structure may include breaking into communities of interest for Accounting, Distribution, Request-routing.
Comment: (Ted Hardie, Equinix) observed most CDNs are overlay networks, do CPGs need to be co-resident with surrogates.
Draft charter: The goal of this group is to define protocols to allow the interoperation of separately--administred content networks...
The group will define requirements and protocol specifications for 3 types of content networking: Requirements and protocols for each of request routing, distribution, and accounting. Other documents include documents on scenarios, system architecture, known request-routing mechanisms, and vocabulary.
[Proposed charter, as discussed at the meeting, is available at http://www.content-peering.org/CDINewCharter.txt]
Dec 2000: bof meets, choose editors
Feb 2001: first drafts fo requirements and protocols
Mar 2001: merged updated vocaulary, scenarios, architecture docs
Mar 2001: IETF Minneapolis
Jun 2001: new requrements, protocols docs
Jul 2001 Last call for requirements
Aug 2001: IETF London
Oct 2001: last call for protocols
Dec 2001: IETF Salt Lake City
-- Aaron Falk, Net-36: Is streaming in scope? A: not decided, may just want to have hooks for later addition. Level of involvement will be in charter.
-- Curious about trust model to prevent requests coming being served to non-peers.
-- Question about scope. What about when CDNs peer with other service networks? E.g., trans-coding services. How do you talk to them when they don't have the request-routing services, etc?
-- Dan Li, Cisco: Scalability of architecture very important. Possible overlap with WREC working group. A: WREC is focusing on intra-domain, CDNP is cross-domain. Groups will share technology where necessary.
-- Alex French, Via-Net Networks: isn't it a bit soon to start drafting protocols? Some of these problems are pretty hard.
-- Are you following other resource allocation protocol development in the IETF? These may offer some guidance in security and authentication. A: can you ID the necessary groups?
-- Is settlement within the scope? A: wanted to decouple accounting from transfer of value. May not be able to put definition of which way value flows may be difficult because it will depend heavily on the business model. Suggestion: settlement is out of scope.
-- Oliver Spatscheck, ATT: if accounting is standardized, what else does IETF need to standardize in terms of settlement?
Closing comments: understand that schedule may be too agressive.
Should the effort continue as a WG in the proposed direction? Loud hum in favor, no opposing hum was heard.
Content Distribution Internetworking IETF BOF