i agree with that.
by the way, the VPCN draft also fits in the model and can be used as a basis for the WG. let us pursue this more
abbie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Condry, Michael W. [mailto:condry@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 12:18 PM
> To: Tomlinson, Gary; webi@lists.equinix.com; ietf-openproxy@imc.org;
> cdn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: The need for a common Content Network Model
>
>
> Gary-
> This is a great suggestion and possibly indicating the value of David
> Martin's suggestion of a content coordination group for CDI,
> OPES, and Webi.
> At 09:01 AM 12/12/2001, Tomlinson, Gary wrote:
>
> >I've been thinking about why we've had difficulty in
> communicating the
> >concept of Content Network Overlays along with Content
> >Networks in general within the IETF. Both CDI and OPES have
> attempted to
> >describe them in their models drafts respectively;
> >however with a bent towards their minimalist needs.
> >
> >IMHO the reason for this is, RFC 3040 defines a taxonomy that mostly
> >predates the current notions and maturity of what
> >content networks are. I suggest we consider producing a
> content networks
> >models document that embodies the broader
> >view of what a Content Network is including the notion of
> content services
> >networks/distributed web services. In my mind,
> >this activity would be best done in the WEBI WG, since it
> would serve the
> >broader IETF community at large. It would simply
> >the documents CDI and OPES are producing and base them on a common
> >underlying context.
> >
> >My $.02
> >
> >Gary
>
> Michael W. Condry
> Director, Network Edge Technology
>
>
>