[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Questions/issues about Request-Routing Requirements



Title: RE: Questions/issues about Request-Routing Requirements

Comments inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DonE@activate.net [mailto:DonE@activate.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 4:04 PM
> To: bcain@mediaone.net; spatsch@research.att.com;
> Martin.May@activia.net; Barbir, Abbie [CAR:CC70:EXCH]
> Cc: cdn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Questions/issues about Request-Routing Requirements
>
>
> I don’t think we’re at a stage yet for detailed comments on “Request
> Routing Requirements for Content Interworking”, but instead I
> want to ask
> 4 general questions / raise  4 general issues that I don’t understand:

Can you expand why you think we are not at the stage of reviewing the above draft?

>
> 1.  Although confusion between Distribution and Request Routing has
> been discussed on this list several times, some of the needs for
> advertisement in the RR rqmts raised it for me again.  Is the reason
> because,
> in the case of pull-type distribution, the distribution may be done at
> request-
> routing time?  If so, maybe the protocol split should be
>     + A protocol only needed by distribution
>     + A protocol only needed by request routing
>     + A protocol used by distribution and request routing.
> This last protocol would be specified by most of the requirements in
> Subsection 3.2.2 (Advertisement) of the RR rqmts.

Reading both drafts submitted so far, this is my understanding:
a. Request routing supports the following RRS advertisment types: Network, Content
b. Distribution supports the following DPS advertisment types: Advertising, Replication and Signaling

So once the DPS completes distribution of the content to the Content Destination, it will notify the RRS of the content availability.

Extract from draft-cdnp-distreqs-2.txt section 4.1 ".......
   4.  Once the Content Destination is prepared, it will notify the
       Request Routing System of the content's availability...."

Based on this I fail to see the need for the last protocol above.

- Nalin

--- snipped -----
 
> Thanks,
> Don Estberg
>
>