* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Cdni Status Pages

Content Delivery Networks Interconnection (Active WG)
Art Area: Francesca Palombini, Murray Kucherawy | 2011-Jun-28 —  

IETF-114 cdni minutes


minutes-114-cdni-00 minute

          CDNI WG Minutes
          IETF-114 Philadelphia
          Chairs: Kevin Ma and Sanjay Mishra
          AD: Francesca Palombini
          Agenda and Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/114/session/cdni
          Recording: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf114/recordings#CDNI
          Chair Slides (Chairs)
          RFC9246 published!
          SubCerts draft adopted!
          CDNI Footprints (Sanjay Mishra)
          - During WGLC 2 issues were raised:
          1. Should we use earth based coordinate areas?
            Sanjay: subdivision code solves a specific known use case requirement;
            the proposal: if a requirement arrises write a separate draft
            Kevin: Agree with the proposal
            Chris Lemmons: Agree with the approach.  The implementation could
            be gnarly.  Wait until it is really important.
            Benson Muite (from jabber): That is ok
          2. Should we register the ALTO Entity Domain Types in this draft or a
          separate draft?
            Sanjay: Will review with Nir to pick the best option
            Kevin: Happy either way; would like to get the draft finished up
            Emile Stephan: Just add it to the IANA section of this draft.
            Creating a separate draft for the ALTO is more work.  It is more
            efficient to just add it to this draft
            Kevin: It shouldn't be a lot of text
          CDNI Triggers (Sanjay Mishra)
          - The trigger extensions draft added new features; 8007bis changed
          encoding for extensibility
          - trigger spec: generic object
          - trigger type -> generic action
          Sanjay: Authors will do editorial updates and would like to get to WGLC
          for IETF 115
          Kevin: Everyone should review the changes
          HTTPS Delegation (Frederic Fieau)
          Frederic: Draft is updated.  Are we ready for WGLC?
          Kevin: I sent more comments to the list this morning: not sure if we
          need the FCI object or metadata explanation and may need an update to
          the security considerations
          Sanjay: Thomas Fossati is reviewing the draft as well
          Chris: (channeling Rajeev RK in jabber) Slide footer should not be
          "Orange Restricted"
          Frederic: Will update
          Kevin: I would like to get to WGLC before IETF 115 if we can address
          the comments on the list
          HTTPS Delegation using subcerts (Christoph Neumann)
          - Updated the name to be a working group draft.
          - Removed the new interface and added an FCI object
          Kevin: I emailed list this morning: can we get away with not using FCI
          and just using metadata?  This is an important topic that we need to
          close on.  Everyone should provide input on the list.
          Sanjay: I also sent comments to the list this morning
          Christoph: The main point is having the FCI object discussion.
          Will follow up on the list.
          Kevin: Yes.  I will hold off on nits until we close on FCI vs Metadata
          CDNI Metadata (Glenn Goldstein)
          - SVA has a push-based metadata API: need to distinguish update and deploy
          Kevin: Is there a reason the CDNI triggered pull approach was not
          Glenn: Content Provider configuring CDNs generally push
          Kevin: Right, and CP -> uCDN is out-of-scope of CDNI, so we didn't do
          CP -> uCDN push
          - Proposal: 6 smaller drafts, with new content
          Kevin: I like the smaller, scoped drafts.  For the new content, encourage
          having the discussion on the CDNI list.
          Chris: We should verify charter scope for each draft
          Chris: Significant support and excitement for metadata expression language
          Tom Hill: Why not use YANG for metadata expression language?  Is there
          room for YANG?  For automation, many are familiar with YANG.
          Glenn: I can't speak to YANG.  The metadata expression language is based
          on internal work done at Lumen, but we will follow up.
          Chris: There is less YANG experience in the WG
          Emile: There are many languages
          Alfonso Silóniz: I'm not familiar with YANG, but it is a good thing
          to discuss
          Glenn: YANG is a data modeling language and we need an  expression
          language which is different
          Alfonso: Agreed
          Ben Rosenblum: We use YANG for configuring telecom hardware
          Rajeev: There is also an expression language syntax that might be usable
          without using the modeling language
          Glenn: We will address YANG in the list thread
          - For new FCI objects, should they live with the metadata definition?
          Kevin: Keep them together
          Glenn: Agreed
          - Name footprints
          RajeevRK: Footprints are defined by dCDNs but there is no way to otherwise
          reference them
          Kevin: Could we just add a label to footprintunion in the footprint draft
          RajeevRK: Will read the draft
          RajeevRK: Is it advisable to have overlapping footprints?
          Kevin: CDNI does not have a stance on overlapping footprints; it's up
          to the CDNs to determine how to use them
          Matt Stock: Composite footprints can become hairy.  I like having an
          optional name.  Or a way to ask the dCDN if it can support a footprint
          X and have it return a label.
          Alfonso: If a dCDN advertises capabilities with different footprints,
          it is hard to manage metadata configuration because it is not possible
          to define metadata by footprint
          Kevin: We have not looked at this level of complexity before.  It is a
          big topic that we should take to the list.
          Glenn: Related: we have also looked at named metadata
          Consumer Technology Association (CTA) Web Application Video Ecosystem
          (WAVE) (Chris Lemmons)
          - more concrete list of claims
          RajeevRK: Network claim includes ASN (not just IPs)
          Richard Patterson: What happens rotating between IPv4 and IPv6 or when
          privacy extensions are used?
          Chris: They don't work and the doc says don't use this for identity
          binding.  There are some legitimate uses (e.g., allow only 10 net)
          that demand support.
          RajeevRK: IPs more granular than /24, /56 must be encrypted
          - encrypted composition claims
          Kevin: What is the impact to CDNI?
          Chris: Not a direct competitor to URI Signing.  May need a draft to
          support delegating CATs; metadata for CATs.
          Capacity Advertisement (Chairs)
          Kevin: Does anyone think it is a bad idea to adopt the draft?
          Chris: :thumbs_up:
          Ben: Andrew has a new revision with cosmetic changes if we want to wait
          to adopt
          Kevin: We can do the call for adoption.  I encourage everyone to read
          the draft and provide input on the thread on the list.
          session closed

Generated from PyHt script /wg/cdni/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -