CDNI Working Group Minutes IETF-90, Toronto, Canada - Chaired by Francois Le Faucheur and Daryl Malas - Meeting notes captured by Kent Leung, edited by Francois Le Faucheur & Daryl Malas - Audio Recording at : http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf90/ietf90-salonb-20140724-1520-pm2.mp3 - Slides accessible at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/90/materials.html#wg-cdni Thursday, July 24, 2014, 15:20-17:20, Salon B =================================================== - about 50 people in the room, 2 people on WebEx, no jabber scribe Introduction and Agenda (WG chairs) --------------------------------------------------------------- - Introduction by the WG chairs, and Note Well statement. - Agenda review, no request to change agenda - No New Published RFCs (since London meeting) - Document Update and progress against the charter milestones * cdni-requirements: in “RFC Editor Queue” state * cdni-framework: in “RFC Editor Queue” state * cdni-logging: Ops-Dir Review completed, addressing IANA items in next rev, then WGLC * cdni-metadata: WG chair review completed, comments being addressed, near WGLC * cdni-triggers: Detailed reviewed completed, nearing WGLC CDNI Metadata, draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-07: Ben Niven-Jenkins ---------------------------------------------------- - Ben gave a status update on draft * all editorials from Francois’ review are addressed * two thirds of non-editorials from Francois’ are addressed - Authors to issue the next version by mid-Sept, then ready for independent (non-author) review * Jan Seedorf and Linda Dunbar will review that version * after that review tentative plan is to go to WGLC CDNI Logging, draft-ietf-cdni-logging-12: Iuniana Oprescu --------------------------------------------------------- - Iuniana gave a status update on draft - Jan S: Request clarification for “claimed-origin” and “verified-origin” in slide - Kevin: requested further clarification, Francois responded - Daryl: All reviews on draft are completed. Just get the changes needed for alignment with FCI semantics (se discussion below on FCI semantics) into next version and wait for 1 week for review before submitting to IESG review 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. FCI Advertisement (ALTO Service), draft-seedorf-cdni-request-routing-alto-07: Jan Seedorf ------------------------------------------------------- - Kevin: Ray asked why are we choosing from 2 drafts? - Jan: Use the JSON from Ma’s draft to apply to ALTO - Jon: We can’t predict what model will be used, use this as a framework - Daryl: As ALTO WG re-charters, what progress is being made and how CDNI fits - Jan: Ongoing discussions, will present to ALTO WG. CDNI as an ALTO service; there are differences between CDNI and ALTO services - Enrico: Nothing mentioned in the CDNI ALTO draft is not part of ALTO - Daryl: I don’t hear the same - Jan: ALTO maps is no longer needed, JSON via Ma’s method is for CDNI; concerns are mostly gone - Enrico: Incremental updates - Francois: Is there any dependencies on ALTO by going with the current drafts (other than for optimisation)? - Enrico/Jan: No dependency on ALTO FCI Advertisement (Objects), draft-ma-cdni-capabilities-06: Kevin Ma ------------------------------------------------------- - Kevin presented - Jan: No comment - Daryl: Make all the revisions that were mentioned, and then we can talk about adoption of the draft Routing Request Redirection for CDN Interconnection, draft-ietf-cdni-redirection-02: Ben Niven-Jenkins ------------------------------------------------------- - Ben presented - Kent: clarify if URI Signing or RI draft should document URI Signing scenario - Ben: Prefer in URI Signing draft - Kent: Agree - Francois: Should there be capabilities advertisement? - Kevin/Jan/Ben/Kent: Yes, RI should have its own advertisement objects. Will add a placeholder section. CDNI Control Interface, draft-ietf-cdni-triggers-03: Rob Murray ------------------------------------------------------- - Rob presented - Kevin: Delete will remove everything regardless if it’s in progress or not started yet? - Daryl: Need the option for “cancel” in addition to “delete”, it’s useful - Rob: OK - Francois: mid-sept for next version? WGLC sent to the Mailing List, and review, finish chair review. We know by next WG meeting. - Francois: Any advertising support needed? - Rob: Capabilities could be advertised inside the interface itself - Francois: that would eb a different approach to the general FCI approach and that would not allow request routing to select a CDN based on triggers capabilities. - Rob/Ben: agreed, so we’ll add a a placeholder section for capability advertisement. CDNI URI Signing, draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-00: Kent Leung ------------------------------------------------------------- - Brief update with the new working group draft, and a debrief on MPEG DASH work on URI signing. - Spencer: MPEG DASH liaison just received. - Kent/Ray: need to define what exactly is needed to support DASH ABR use case, and then decide whether the corresponding extensions should be included in current URI signing draft or into a separate document. Meeting closes --------------