Re: CDI Distribution Draft

[Dan Li <lidan@cisco.com>]

At 09:31 AM 11/26/2001 -0500, Lisa Amini wrote:
>  > >       Specifically, a master Resource Group could be defined which
>  > >       would be used as the channel to communicate which Resource Groups
>  > >       to be added/withdrawn from service.  The CIG would then establish
>  > >       channels to receive cache coherency messages for these Resource
>  > >       Groups.
>  >
>  > Yah, this is a nice architecture point for an end-to-end CDN or inter-CDN
>  > system. Good to mention it in your draft.
>  >
>  > However, it is out side of RUP scope. RUP defines the operation within one
>  > channel. How multiple channels are tied together or communicated to a 
> cache
>  > is a separate matter, and can potentially use any one of many solutions.
>                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I wasn't aware of any standardized solutions for this -- can you provide
>some pointers?

e.g., manual config, SDP, WSDL/UDDL, PNP, ...

It's fine to define a master control channel for tieing together all "CDN 
channels" -- I'm actually quite interested in defining one. I just think it 
needs to be tackled as a separate building block from RUP.

>The metadata is as listed in Section 5.5, item 8.  I believe some of these
>fields map well to RUP (such as the Content Set (Resource Group),
>Authoritive Source (Content Location)), but others such as the Accounting
>Format Accounting Type, Request Routing Type, Time Frame (not the time for
>which the object is valid, but instead the time for which distribution
>services are being requested), ...).  So, yes, this metadata is important
>for interoperability, but some is also specific to CI.
>
>Given the need for interoperability and the fact that the current RUP
>document appears to be shifting toward covering both intra- and inter-
>domain, I consider it reasonable to specify this info in the RUP document.
>However, if it does not, as long as the RUP document does not preclude
>metadata being communicated as associated with content or resource
>groups, then we could publish a CI-specific document to cover these fields.

sounds like the right approach. Could the CDI Distribution reflect the 
above comment / clarification?

Thanks!
Dan