New Scenarios draft

["Phil Rzewski" <philr@inktomi.com>]

Hi team. Just wanted to alert everyone to a new version of the Scenarios draft.

As a teaser to get you to read it, here's a summary of some of the highlights:

- Replaced "Access Content Network (ACN)" with "Local Request-Routing Content Network (LCN)". Discussion on the list from the last draft made me realize that I did a poor job of explaining the ACN concept (but after debate, people did seem to agree that it should still be captured somehow). I'm now trying to stress the definition in terms of the tight administrative control that causes clients to be bound to some local server, and I find an enterprise is a good way to frame this.

- I included definitions of "Regional" and "Global" CNs. These are new definitions, but they've been used in discussions on the list, so I figured it would be good to capture some meaning for newbies. Obviously, since this is their first appearance, I welcome tweaks.

- I decided NOT to take on the stuff that Mark Day deleted from "Models". When looking at it, it seemed like that stuff was all covered within Scenarios, but in more detail (and with diagrams, etc.)

- On page 6, we use the term "transitive". I think I know what the original intent was of this phrase, but I wouldn't mind fleshing it out a little better. Would someone (Mark?) like to suggest a brief, one-sentence example to go with it?

- The terms "DISTRIBUTING CONTENT NETWORK" and "ORIGIN CONTENT NETWORK" were previously being used, but were not defined in Models. Since any given CN can do distribution, act as an origin, or be both at any given time, I decided to move the adjectives here to lowercase/informal definitions: "originating CONTENT NETWORK", and "enlisted CONTENT NETWORK" (using the more generic term "enlisted", since another CN is typically asked to do RR/A as well as distribution... trying to capture the nature of who's giving orders and who's acting on them, rather than a technical statement).

- In general, in the scenarios, I tried to shy away from enumerating every possibility. In the previous draft, for each scenario, there was lots of "you could also do this... you could also do that..." which I think made it kind of confusing. I think it's clearer to open up with one general case, then show a bunch of specifics, then leave it up to the reader's imagination to consider the dozens of other possibilities.


- I weaved the terms like PCN/BCN/LCN into the scenarios where appropriate. I hope this helps them become clearer.

- References to "peer" and "CDN" are gone... for better or worse. :)

- I took out the section on accounting. This could be quite controversial and may create a completely separate debate, so I'm going to detail that on in a separate message.

Please provide feedback... I'd be keen to get another revision of this out in the next couple weeks so we can have another draft on the "group last call" warpath...

--
Phil


>To: IETF-Announce: ;
>From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
>Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
>Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-day-cdnp-scenarios-04.txt
>Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 07:05:30 -0500
>Sender: nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us
>
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>
>
>	Title		: Content Internetworking (CDI) Scenarios
>	Author(s)	: M. Day, D. Gilletti, P. Rzewski
>	Filename	: draft-day-cdnp-scenarios-04.txt
>	Pages		: 17
>	Date		: 06-Nov-01
>	
>This document sets forth several logical and detailed scenarios to
>be considered when evaluating systems and protocols for Content
>Internetworking.
>
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-day-cdnp-scenarios-04.txt


--
Phil Rzewski - Senior Architect - Inktomi Corporation                  
650-653-2487 (office) - 650-303-3790 (cell) - 650-653-1848 (fax)