idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-cdni-media-type-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (August 17, 2015) is 3168 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 CDNI K. Ma 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Intended status: Informational August 17, 2015 5 Expires: February 18, 2016 7 CDNI Media Type Registration 8 draft-ietf-cdni-media-type-00 10 Abstract 12 This document defines the standard media type used by the Content 13 Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) protocol suite, including the 14 registration procedure and recommended usage of the required payload- 15 type parameter . 17 Requirements Language 19 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 20 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 21 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 18, 2016. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2.1. CDNI Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 2.2. CDNI Payload Type Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 3. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 Appendix A. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 1. Introduction and Scope 67 The CDNI working group is developing a set of protocols to enable the 68 interconnection of multiple CDNs to a CDN federation, as discussed in 69 [RFC6770]. The CDNI protocol suite consists of multiple HTTP-based 70 interfaces, many of which transfer various json encoded payloads. 71 The main interfaces (i.e., CDNI Control interface, CDNI Footprint & 72 Capabilities Advertisement interface, CDNI Request Routing 73 Redirection interface, CDNI Metadata interface, and CDNI Logging 74 interface) are described in [RFC7336]. It is desirable to be able to 75 indicate the type of object carried in the HTTP entity-body without 76 having to register separate media types for each CDNI object. To 77 accomplish this aims, this document defines a single new media type 78 for CDNI that includes a required payload-type parameter. A separate 79 registry of CDNI payload-type parameter values is also defined. CDNI 80 protocol specifications may register interface-specific payload- 81 types, specifying the payload encoding and parsing semantics for that 82 message (e.g., json serialization for a CDNI metadata object). The 83 same payload-type parameter names may also be used as references for 84 other purposes (e.g., referencing CDNI metadata objects from CDNI 85 capability advertisement objects). 87 2. IANA Considerations 89 This section contains the CDNI media type registration request for 90 IANA, as well as the payload-type parameter registry definition for 91 IANA. 93 2.1. CDNI Media Type 95 Type name: application 97 Subtype name: cdni 99 Required parameters: 101 ptype 103 The required parameter "ptype" describes the type of CDNI 104 message contained in the message payload, as registered in the 105 CDNI Payload Type Parameter Registry (Section 2.2) defined 106 below. 108 Optional parameters: none 110 Encoding considerations: 112 The CDNI protocol suite includes interfaces with json encoded 113 messages which may be 8bit or binary, as well as generic logging 114 information which may be 7bit or binary. 116 Security considerations: 118 CDNI interfaces that return json encoded data may be 119 (mis)interpreted if parsed by non-CDNI or non-compliant CDNI 120 implementations. In addition, CDNI logging information is likely 121 to transfer large amounts of data which may overload unexpecting 122 clients. The individual CDNI interface specifications provide 123 more detailed analysis of security and privacy concerns, and 124 define the requirements for authentication, authorization, 125 confidentiality, integrity, and privacy for each interface. 127 Interoperability considerations: 129 The required ptype field is intended to fully describe the 130 structure and parsing of CDNI messages, as enforced by the ptype 131 registry expert reviewer. 133 Published specification: RFCthis 135 Applications that use this media type: 137 CDNI is intended for use between interconnected CDNs for sharing 138 configuration and logging data, as well as for issuing content 139 management and redirection requests. 141 Fragment identifier considerations: N/A 143 Additional information: N/A 145 Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A 147 Magic number(s): N/A 149 File extension(s): N/A 151 Macintosh file type code(s): N/A 153 Person & email address to contact for further information: 155 Kevin Ma 157 Intended usage: LIMITED USE 159 Restrictions on usage: 161 This media type is intended only for use in CDNI protocol message 162 exchanges. 164 Author: IETF CDNI working group 166 Change controller: IETF CDNI working group 168 Provisional registration: yes 170 2.2. CDNI Payload Type Parameter Registry 172 The IANA is requested to create a new "CDNI Payload Type" registry. 173 The "CDNI Payload Type" namespace defines the valid values for the 174 required "ptype" parameter of the "application/cdni" media type. The 175 CDNI Payload Type is an ASCII string value, consisting of only 176 visible (printing) characters, but excluding equal signs (=), double 177 quotes ("), and semicolons (;), and not exceeding 256 characters in 178 length. 180 Additions to the CDNI Payload Type namespace conform to the "Expert 181 Review" policy as defined in [RFC5226]. The expert review will 182 verify that new type definitions do not duplicate existing type 183 definitions (in name or functionality), prevent gratuitous additions 184 to the namespace, and prevent any additions to the namespace which 185 would impair the interoperability of CDNI implementations. The 186 expert review will include review of a publicly available written 187 specification (preferably an RFC, though an RFC is not required). 189 The expert review will verify the following information is documented 190 in the written specification: 192 o The review will verify that the specification contains a 193 reasonably defined purpose for the new payload type, where rhe 194 purpose is related to an existing or proposed CDNI interface and 195 does not duplicate the functionality of any existing CDNI protocol 196 feature without specifying a rational reason (e.g., updating an 197 obsolete feature), a method for detecting and handling conflicts 198 (e.g., a versioning system with prioritization matrix), and a 199 suggested migration path (e.g., deprecation of the overlapped 200 feature, or justification for co-existence). 202 o The review will verify that the specification contains information 203 as to which CDNI interface the new payload type pertains/affects. 204 The payload type may be applicable to multiple CDNI interfaces, 205 but the justification for the new payload type will include a 206 reasonable relationship to at least one standards track CDNI 207 interface. 209 o The review will verify that the specification contains sufficient 210 detail about the data encoding (e.g., json serialization for new 211 CDNI metadata or capability advertisement objects, or ABNF and 212 description for new CDNI logging file formats) to allow senders 213 and receivers of the new payload type to implement compliant and 214 interoperable payload parsers. 216 The registry contains the Payload Type value, and the specification 217 describing the Payload Type. The registry will initially be 218 unpopulated. 220 +--------------+---------------+ 221 | Payload Type | Specification | 222 +--------------+---------------+ 223 +--------------+---------------+ 225 3. Normative References 227 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 228 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 229 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 230 . 232 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 233 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 234 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 235 . 237 [RFC6770] Bertrand, G., Ed., Stephan, E., Burbridge, T., Eardley, 238 P., Ma, K., and G. Watson, "Use Cases for Content Delivery 239 Network Interconnection", RFC 6770, DOI 10.17487/RFC6770, 240 November 2012, . 242 [RFC7336] Peterson, L., Davie, B., and R. van Brandenburg, Ed., 243 "Framework for Content Distribution Network 244 Interconnection (CDNI)", RFC 7336, DOI 10.17487/RFC7336, 245 August 2014, . 247 Appendix A. Acknowledgment 249 This document is the culmination of the efforts of many in the CDNI 250 working group, including (in alphabetical order): Francois Le 251 Faucheur, Daryl Malas, Rob Murray, Ben Niven-Jenkins, Iuniana 252 Oprescu, Jon Peterson, and Jan Seedorf. 254 Author's Address 256 Kevin J. Ma 257 Ericsson 258 43 Nagog Park 259 Acton, MA 01720 260 USA 262 Phone: +1 978-844-5100 263 Email: kevin.j.ma@ericsson.com