Current Meeting Report

2.1.13 Content Distribution Internetworking (cdi) Bof

Current Meeting Report

Content Distribution Internetworking Minutes
IETF 52, Salt Lake City, Utah
By Michael Speer

Chaired by: Mark Day, Cisco
Phil Rzewski, Inktomi Corporation

Charter Status (Mark Day):

At the end of IETF 51, the IAB (Internet Architecture Board) was put in charge of deciding the fate of the CDI group. Status is unclear at this moment in time.

Area Director Ned Freed stated that the Charter of the CDI Group was on the agenda for the 20th of December and he was reasonably certain that the working group was to be chartered soon.

Group Activity (Mark Day):

New versions of all documents except the architecture and AAA documents are available. Two documents the models document and the "Known Content Network Request Routing Mechanisms" document had made it through group last call.

IAB member Leslie Daigle reminded us that we are not a working group yet, thus the documents are merely in a holding pattern and open to question.

New drafts have emerged for "Known Mechanisms for Content Internetworking", the "Content Network Advertisement Protocol (CNAP)", and "Data Compression for CNAP".

Model Document Review (Mark Day):

The model document introduces the reader to the concept of Content Interneworking and gives us a shared volcabulary to use.

- Document has passed group last call
- Completeness is hard to judge since other documents need to completed
- Ready to submit to the IESG against the group's proposed charter.

Content Network Request Routing Mechanisms (Abbie Barbir):

The Request Routing Document is pretty complete at this point.

- Working group last call complete.
- Need to submit as information RFC

Scenarios Draft (Phil Rzewski):

Describes some types of CNs (Content Networks) including Publishing Content Networks, Brokering Content Networks, Local Request-Routing Content Networks, and Regional vs. Global Content Networks.

- Synced with the Models document for terminology consistency
- Stopped enumerating every possiblity.
- Removed the accounting scenarious.
- Next Steps:
- Silence is acceptance? People need to provide feedback.
- Group last call Jan 15th

Architecture Overview Document (Phil Rzewski, Gary Tomlinson not present):

Still waiting for an updated version of this document. Gary plans to have at the end of December.

Request Routing Requirements Document (Abbie Barbir):

Introduction to the Request Routing Systems. Details the components of such systems and provides the requirements needed from a request routing protocol.

- Would like to move the draft to last call
- Need to complete the security section.
- Need feedback !!!!

Comments from the Audience:

Tom hardie: Section 3.3 is somewhat problematic. Can it or will it lead to route looping?

Distribution Requirements Document (Oliver Spatscheck, AT&T):

This document describes the requirements for interconnecting Distribution Systems of Content Networks. It includes the description and requirements for: Distribution Advertising, Content Signaling, and Content Replication.

Status and Major Issues:

- Need to add examples.
- Security Hop-by-hop?
- IPSec, Secrecy, authentication
- End to End Security.
- Please provide comments and input

Accounting Requirements Document (Mark Day):

Shelve it or keep it. Document needs a new owner and new energy.

Content Network Advertisement Protocol (Abbie, Nortel Networks):

CNAP is simple protocol to provide content and area advertisement. It is derived from the request routing requirements document. The protocol is used between CNs to exchange realtime data. The protocol is text-based and uses TCP as its transport.

- Is the scope of the protocol correct?
- Should it be text based.


- Tom Hardie: What is the interaction between CNAP Area prefixes and the underlying routing system? The working group really needs to consider this interaction.

- Mark Day: What is the sense about the evolution of CNAP? Does it capture the requirements of the Request Routing System?

- Darrel Newcomb: What is the proposal for state and Aggregation of advertisements?

Open Discussion (Phil Rzewski):

- Is there a good reason to aggregate OPES, WEBI, and CDI to find common models and definition?

Michael Condry: Over the the content perspective is a good one.

Abbie: It is a good idea to find commonality. Maybe we need an umbrella group to define layer 7. OPES is not well defined.

Ian Cooper: Maybe RFC 3040 needs to be updates and WEBI should not serve as the umbrella group.

David Martin: We don't need another working group, just find the common terminology.