Content Delivery Networks Interconnection
charter-ietf-cdni-02
Yes
(Martin Stiemerling)
No Objection
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-06 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?"
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01-06)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2013-10-21 for -01-06)
Unknown
I'd like to call particular attention of the SEC and APP areas to the added deliverable for "CDNI URI Signing". My understanding is that this was discussed between TSV and SEC perhaps a year ago, and the answer was "please write a draft". The working group is likely to consider http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-leung-cdni-uri-signing-03.txt for adoption to fulfill this deliverable. Early surprises are best :-)
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Block)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-11-21 for -01-06)
Unknown
My blocking comment used to read... We seem to have repeated discussions about what "routing" means in the CDNi context. Since the work item here discusses communication with the "routing system" w need to be pretty clear what we are talking about and, if necessary, nail down the interaction with the Routing Area. Having read and re-read the charter and the background material, I conclude that it would be addressed by changing > upstream CDN request routing system to either > upstream CDN Request-Routing System or preferably > upstream CDN system --- Shouldn't you have removed the work items that have already been completed?
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-10-22 for -01-06)
Unknown
I have no objection to the rechartering, but I do have to note one thing: I see that the "short timeframe" phrase remains, but there's no longer an estimate of what that timeframe might be. We have passed the original estimate of 18-24 months, and what we have are problem statement, use cases, and requirements documents. How close are we to (or how far from) a "targeted, deployable solution" at this point?
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-11-17 for -01-06)
Unknown
Just to make sure you thought about.
The working group will focus on the following items:
- A "problem statement" document providing a description of the problem
and a common terminology.
- A "use case" document describing scenarios for usage and applications
of the CDNI solution and protocols.
Well, the WG will not focus on these, since they're done.
If you want to keep track of the documents in the charter, maybe
After the "problem statement" and "use case" documents, the working
group will focus on the following items:
...
Note: the draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12 will hopefully be approved soon...
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-06)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-06)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-06)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-06)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-06)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-06)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-11-21 for -01-06)
Unknown
Assuming this goes for external review so we can check the signing thing then it should be fine.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-06)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-06)
Unknown