Re: Preliminary minutes from London meeting

["Lisa Amini" <aminil@us.ibm.com>]

I think the response was more along the lines that RUP document had been
modified to say it was focusing on invalidation --  in it's current form,
it does not fully encompass the CDI requirements.  Regardless, I would work
having the document reflect what was being covered by RUP.

In the subsequent RUP meeting, there seemed to be consensus that the
requirements for the 'distribution' and 'payload' components should be
separated.

In which case (IMO), the 'distribution component' should reflect the need
for inter-CDN requirements (as well as the need to support an invalidation
payload).  Unfortunately, I think the CDI Dist Requirements is not clear
enough on the requirements for the 'distribution component' in the 'content
signalling' portion of the draft (it really only discussed
fields/attributes which equates to the 'payload component').  In the RUP
meeting, I committed to providing input to reflect the CDI requirements --
which I haven't followed through, yet.

I think the key is to also separate the requirements for the distribution
and payload components, in the hopes that the distribution component of the
RUP document could indeed cover the CDI requirements.  The payload would
probably remain separate, and specifically cover the CDI requirements for
initiating/updating/withdrawing content (distribution/delivery) services
(not invalidation).


--Lisa

Fred Douglis <douglis@research.att.com>@ops.ietf.org on 08/17/2001 11:28:29
AM

Sent by:  owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org


To:   "Mark Day" <markday@cisco.com>
cc:   cdn@ops.ietf.org
Subject:  Re: Preliminary minutes from London meeting



> Lisa Amini presented a report on the "Distribution requirements" draft.
She
> highlighted several interdependencies with other CDI drafts and with
WEBI.
> She described several issues, including support for streaming media,
partial
> objects, security, and DRM implications.  She asked for feedback and
> comments on the mailing list.
> Question: This needs reconciliation with RUP.  RUP is intended for the
> content space.  Answer: Yes, the draft should explicitly point to RUP,
but
> remember RUP does not support inter-CDN processes.

I don't recall the last part of the answer, or in any case, I don't agree
with
it.  Why shouldn't RUP encompass inter-CDN interactions?


> Question:  The CDN mailing list has had very little traffic recently, no
> discussion.  What's going on?  Is the work being done in smoke-filled
chat
> rooms?

Since the scribe attributed the other questions to individuals, it should
attribute this one to me.  I would also modify it to put "smoke-filled chat
rooms" in quotes, because it was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and add
Mark's response that he believed that it was genuinely quiet and not a
result
of private conversations that were not making their way to the list.

Fred