Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities Semantics
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "The IESG" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, "Francois Le Faucheur" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com Subject: Protocol Action: 'CDNI Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities Semantics' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-20.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'CDNI Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities Semantics' (draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-20.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Content Delivery Networks Interconnection Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Alexey Melnikov, Ben Campbell and Alissa Cooper. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics/
Technical Summary This document describes the semantic of a footprint and capability advertisement function usable by interconnected CDNs allowing downstream CDNs (dCDNs) to advertise capabilities and the coverage footprint of those capabilities to upstream CDNs (uCDNs). This function is to be supported by the CDNI Footprint & Capabilities interface (FCI) identified in the CDNI Framework (RFC 7336). The FCI is intended to help an uCDN decides whether or not to delegate requests to a given dCDN. Review and Consensus The document contains historical information discussing and defining the scope of FCI (e.g., non-real-time updates, with no attempts to prevent CDNs from lying about footprints, and without requiring CDNs to divulge topology or capacity information). There was a long history of debate over these issues, but consensus was reached. This document defines the broad WG consensus on a minimum set of capabilities to be advertised, and the WG consensus on a minimum set of footprint types to support, with registries created for the future extensibility of both. The document also defines an abstract object for defining new capabilities and footprints. Personnel The document shepherd is Francois Le Faucheur. The responsible AD is Alexey Melnikov.