idnits 2.17.1 draft-ma-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 (July 29, 2015) is 3195 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 July 29, 2015 5 Expires: January 30, 2016 7 CDNI Media Type Registration 8 draft-ma-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 January 30, 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. The ptype value must 105 be a ptype value registered in CDNI Payload Type Parameter 106 Registry (Section 2.2) defined 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 Additional information: N/A 143 Person & email address to contact for further information: 145 Kevin Ma 147 Intended usage: LIMITED USE 149 Restrictions on usage: 151 This media type is intended only for use in CDNI protocol message 152 exchanges. 154 Author: IETF CDNI working group 156 Change controller: IETF CDNI working group 158 Provisional registration: yes 160 2.2. CDNI Payload Type Parameter Registry 162 The IANA is requested to create a new "CDNI Payload Type" registry. 163 The "CDNI Payload Type" namespace defines the valid values for the 164 required "ptype" parameter of the "application/cdni" media type. The 165 CDNI Payload Type is an ASCII string value, consisting of only 166 visible (printing) characters, but excluding equal signs (=), double 167 quotes ("), and semicolons (;), and not exceeding 256 characters in 168 length. 170 Additions to the CDNI Payload Type namespace conform to the "Expert 171 Review" policy as defined in [RFC5226]. The expert review should 172 verify that new type definitions do not duplicate existing type 173 definitions (in name or functionality), prevent gratuitous additions 174 to the namespace, and prevent any additions to the namespace which 175 would impair the interoperability of CDNI implementations. The 176 expert review must include review of a publicly available written 177 specification (preferably an RFC, though an RFC is not required). 178 The expert review should verify the following information is 179 documented in the written specification: 181 o The specification must contain a reasonably defined purpose for 182 the new payload type. The purpose should be related to an 183 existing or proposed CDNI interface and should not duplicate the 184 functionality of any existing CDNI protocol feature without 185 specifying a rational reason (e.g., updating an obsolete feature), 186 a method for detecting and handling conflicts (e.g., a versioning 187 system with prioritization matrix), and a suggested migration path 188 (e.g., deprecation of the overlapped feature, or justification for 189 co-existence). 191 o The specification must contain information as to which CDNI 192 interface the new payload type pertains/affects. The payload type 193 may be applicable to multiple CDNI interfaces. The justification 194 for the new payload type must include a reasonable relationship to 195 a standards track CDNI interface. 197 o The specification must contain sufficient detail about the data 198 encoding (e.g., json serialization for new CDNI metadata or 199 capability advertisement objects, or ABNF and description for new 200 CDNI logging file formats) to allow senders and receivers of the 201 new payload type to implement compliant and interoperable payload 202 parsers. 204 The registry contains the Payload Type value, and the specification 205 describing the Payload Type. The registry should initially be 206 unpopulated. 208 +--------------+---------------+ 209 | Payload Type | Specification | 210 +--------------+---------------+ 211 +--------------+---------------+ 213 3. Normative References 215 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 216 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 217 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 218 . 220 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 221 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 222 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 223 . 225 [RFC6770] Bertrand, G., Ed., Stephan, E., Burbridge, T., Eardley, 226 P., Ma, K., and G. Watson, "Use Cases for Content Delivery 227 Network Interconnection", RFC 6770, DOI 10.17487/RFC6770, 228 November 2012, . 230 [RFC7336] Peterson, L., Davie, B., and R. van Brandenburg, Ed., 231 "Framework for Content Distribution Network 232 Interconnection (CDNI)", RFC 7336, DOI 10.17487/RFC7336, 233 August 2014, . 235 Appendix A. Acknowledgment 237 This document is the culmination of the efforts of many in the CDNI 238 working group, including (in alphabetical order): Francois Le 239 Faucheur, Daryl Malas, Rob Murray, Ben Niven-Jenkins, Iuniana 240 Oprescu, Jon Peterson, and Jan Seedorf. 242 Author's Address 244 Kevin J. Ma 245 Ericsson 246 43 Nagog Park 247 Acton, MA 01720 248 USA 250 Phone: +1 978-844-5100 251 Email: kevin.j.ma@ericsson.com