Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-extensions-08

Document Shepherd: Kevin J. Ma

Responsible AD: Barry Leiba

This document defines one new CDNI Metadata object (MI.FallbackTarget) and one new CDNI Capability object (FCI.RedirectTarget).  The CDNI Metadata Interface (RFC8006) and CDNI Footprint and Capabilities Semantics (RFC8008) define generic base objects and registries to allow extensibility in defining new metadata and capabilities as the need arises.  We did this knowing that we would not think of everything when we wrote RFC8006 and RFC8008.  The Open Caching Working Group (OCWG) at the Streaming Video Alliance (SVA) has adopted the CDNI interfaces as the basis for their work, and in developing their solution discovered one additional metadata object and one additional capability object that they deemed necessary that the CDNI WG did not think of originally.  We asked them to bring the new objects back to the CDNI WG for standardization and they did.  This draft is the result of that request.  The CDNI WG has reviewed the new objects and agreed that they are reasonable and useful additions to the CDNI interfaces.  We are requesting publication as "Proposed Standard" as the object extend the exiting RFC8006 and RFC8008 proposed standards.

The contents of the document have been extensively reviewed within the SVA OCWG.  I was an active member of the SVA OCWG (until a job change) and participated in those discussions.  Within the CDNI WG, an SVA OCWG representative presented a number of topics which received varying levels of discussion.  The two new objects defined in this document were the least controversial items presented.  As such, there was not extensive discussion, but they also didn't need much discussion to garner quick and broad consensus.  As one of the primary authors of both RFC8006 and RFC8008, I am acting as both the expert reviewer and shepherd.  The two objects defined are relatively straight forward and inline with the purposes and goals of RFC8006 and RFC8008.

I am no longer active in the SVA OCWG, but I know they did a proof of concept and had plans to implement these features.

Both authors have confirmed that there is no known IPR related to contents of this document.

There are no downward references in the document, and I agree with the normative vs informative reference designations.

This document registers two new CDNI Payload Types in our IANA registry.  I am the creator of and one of the two expert reviewers for that registry.  The authors addressed all my comments wrt the IANA registrations.
Back