CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advertisment Extensions
draft-ryan-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Andrew Ryan , Ben Rosenblum , Nir Baruch Sopher | ||
| Last updated | 2021-10-22 (Latest revision 2021-07-05) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions, draft-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ryan-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-01
Network Working Group A. Ryan
Internet-Draft Limelight Networks
Updates: 8006, 8008 (if approved) B. Rosenblum
Intended status: Standards Track Vecima
Expires: 25 April 2022 N. Sopher
Qwilt
22 October 2021
CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advertisment Extensions
draft-ryan-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-01
Abstract
Open Caching architecture is a use case of Content Delivery Networks
Interconnection (CDNI) in which the commercial Content Delivery
Network (CDN) is the upstream CDN (uCDN) and the ISP caching layer
serves as the downstream CDN (dCDN). This document supplements to
the CDNI Capability Objects defined in RFC 8008 and CDNI Metadata
Objects in RFC 8006. The defined Capability Objects structure and
interface for advertisments and managment of a downstream CDN
capacity.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 April 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. CDNI Additonal Capability Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Telemetry Capability Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Telemetry Source Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1.1. Telemetry Source Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1.2. Telemetry Source Metric Object . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.2. Telemetry Capability Object Serialization . . . . . . 8
2.2. CapacityLimits Capability Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1. Capacity Limit Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.1.1. Capacity Limit Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1.2. Capacity Limit Telemetry Source Object . . . . . 11
2.2.2. Capacity Limit Object Serialization . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3. RequestedCapacityLimits Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.1. Requsted Limits Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.2. Telemetry Capability Object Serialization . . . . . . 14
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1. CDNI Payload Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.1. CDNI FCI Telemetry Payload Type . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.2. CDNI FCI Capacity Limits Payload Type . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.3. CDNI MI Requested Capacity Limits Payload Type . . . 16
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
The Streaming Video Alliance [SVA] is a global association that works
to solve streaming video challenges in an effort to improve end-user
experience and adoption. The Open Caching Working Group [OCWG] of
the Streaming Video Alliance [SVA] is focused on the delegation of
video delivery requests from commerical CDNs to a caching layer at
the ISP's network. Open Caching architecture is a specific use case
of CDNI where the commercial CDN is the upstream CDN (uCDN) and the
ISP caching layer is the downstream CDN (dCDN). While delegating
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
traffic from one CDN to the other, it is important to make sure that
an appropriate amount of traffic is delegated. In order to achive
that, the SVA Open Caching Capacity Insight Specification [OC-CII]
defines a feedback mechanism to inform the delegator how much traffic
is appropriate to delegate. The traffic level information provided
by that interface will be consumed by entities, such as the Open
Caching Request router [OC-RR], to help inform that entity's traffic
delegation decisions. This document defines and registers CDNI
Payload Types (as defined at section 7.1 of [RFC8006]). These
Payload types are used for Capability Objects added to those defined
at section 4 of [RFC8008], which are required for the Open Caching
Capacity Insights Interface [OC-CII].
For consistency with other CDNI documents this document follows the
CDNI convention of uCDN (upstream CDN) and dCDN (downstream CDN) to
represent the commercial CDN and ISP caching layer respectively.
This document registers two CDNI Payload Types (section 7.1 of
[RFC8006]) for the defined capability objects:
* Telemetry Payload Type: A payload type for the capability object
which defines the supported telemetry sources, the metrics made
available by that source, and corresponding configuration
appropriate to the type of the source (host, port, protocol,
etc..)
* CapacityLimits Payload Type: a payload type for the capability
object which defines Capacity Limits based on a set of defined
limit types and a mapping from those limits to corresponding
telemetry sources for supporting real-time metrics.
and describes usage of a CDNI Generic Metadata object:
* MI.RequestedCapacityLimits: A generic CDNI Metadata object which
allows the uCDN to solicit the dCDN to reconsider Limits. This
object is being proposed as part of CDNI Metadata Model Extensions
[OC-MME]
1.1. Terminology
The following terms are used throughout this document:
* CDN - Content Delivery Network
Additionally, this document reuses the terminology defined in
[RFC6707], [RFC7336], [RFC8006], [RFC8007], [RFC8008], and [RFC8804].
Specifically, we use the following CDNI acronyms:
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
* uCDN, dCDN - Upstream CDN and Downstream CDN respectively (see
[RFC7336] )
1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
1.3. Objectives
In order to enable information exchange between a uCDN and a dCDN
about acceptable levels of traffic to delegate, a design has been
developed as follows:
In normal operation a uCDN will communicate with a dCDN, via an
interface, to collect and understand any limits that a dCDN has set
forth for traffic delegation from a uCDN. These limits will come in
the form of metrics such as bits per second, requests per second,
etc.. These limits can be thought of as Not to Exceed (NTE) limits.
The dCDN should provide access to a telemetry source of near real
time metrics that the uCDN can use to track current usage and compare
that to the limits the dCDN has put forth and adjust traffic
delegation decisions accordingly to keep current usage under the
specified limits. In summary, the dCDN will inform the uCDN of
limits in how much traffic it should delegate towards the dCDN and
then provide a telemetry source that the uCDN can use to track its
current usage. This allows for a non ambiguous definition of what a
particular limit means and how to track usage against it.
Limits that are communicated from the dCDN to the uCDN should be
considered valid based on the TTL of the response. The intention is
that the limits would be long lived and would represent a reasonable
peak limit that the uCDN should target throughout the course of a
time period defined by the TTL.
In the event that a dCDN needs to inform a uCDN of an update to a
previously communicated limit, the dCDN will be able to leverage a
uCDN callback endpoint to inform the uCDN of adjusted limits. The
most common use case for this would be related to dCDN infrastructure
issues which reduced the amount of capacity available.
In the inverse of the above, if a uCDN would like to ask a dCDN to
reconsider a previously established limit, the uCDN can make a call
to the dCDN API interface with a proposed limit. The dCDN can
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
consider the requested limit and choose to send the uCDN an updated
limit if it meets the dCDN criteria. This is an asynchronous
process. When the uCDN sends the solicitation to the dCDN, the dCDN
will acknowledge receipt of the request, but will process the request
with no guarantee that it will trigger an update to any limits.
2. CDNI Additonal Capability Objects
Section 5 of [RFC8008] describes the FCI Capability Advertisement
Object, which contains a CDNI Capability Object as well as the
capability object type (a CDNI Paylod Type). The section also
defines the Capability Objects per such type. Below we define two
additional Capability Objects.
Note: In the following sections, the term "mandatory-to-specify" is
used to convey which properties MUST be included when serializing a
given capability object. When mandatory-to-specify is defined as
"Yes" for an individual property, it means that if the object
containing that property is included in an FCI message, then the
mandatory-to-specify property MUST also be included.
2.1. Telemetry Capability Object
The Telemetry Capability Object is used to define a list of telemetry
sources made available by the dCDN to the uCDN. Telemetry data is
being defined as near real time aggregated metics of dCDN
utilization, such as bits per second egress, and should be specific
to the uCDN and dCDN traffic delegation relationship. Telemetry data
is uniqiely defined by a source id, a metrics name, along with the
footprints that are associated with an FCI.Capability advertisement.
Telemetry data is an important component for CDNI delegation. The
reasons that Telemetry information is important to traffic delegation
is as follows: In situations where there are mutiple delegations, a
uCDN will need to incorporate usage information from it's dCDN in
such as manner as to allow higher level uCDNs to gain vislibility
into traffic that is being delegated to a dCDN. An example of this
is if a Content Provider delegates traffic directly to a CDN, and
that CDN decides to further delegate traffic to a dCDN, if the
Content Provider polls the uCDN for traffic usage, without the uCDN
integrating the Telemetry data of it's dCDN, any traffic the uCDN
delegated would become invisible to the Content Provider. When
defining a Capacity Limit, the meaning of a limit might be considered
ambiguous if the uCDN and dCDN are defining current usage via
different data sources. Having the dCDN provide a data source
defining usage that both itself and the uCDN reference, allows a non
ambiguous metric to use when determing current usage and how that
compares to a limit
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
Property: sources
Description: Telemetry sources made available to the uCDN.
Type: A JSON array of Telemetry Source objects (see
Section 2.1.1).
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
2.1.1. Telemetry Source Object
The Telemetry Source Object is built of an associated type, a list of
exposed metrics, and type-specific configuration data.
Property: id
Description: A unique identifier of a telemetry source.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: type
Description: A valid telemetry source type. See
Section 2.1.1.1.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: metrics
Description: The metrics exposed by this source.
Type: A JSON array of Telemetry Source Metric objects (see
Section 2.1.1.2).
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: configuration
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
Description: a source-specific representation of the Telemetry
source configuration. For the generic source type, this
configuration format is defined out-of-band. For other types,
the configuration format will be specified in a yet to be
defined Telemetry Interface specification. The goal of this
element is to allow for forward compatability with a formal
Telemetry interface.
Type: A JSON object: TBD
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
2.1.1.1. Telemetry Source Types
Below are the listed valid telemetry source types. At the time of
this draft, the type registry is limit to a single type of Generic.
The intention of this type registry is to allow for future extension
to reference a yet to be drafted specification for a CDNI Telemetry
interface, which would standardize the definition, format,etc of
Telemetry data between participants of a CDNI workflow.
+=============+======================================+
| Source Type | Description |
+=============+======================================+
| generic | An object which allows for |
| | advertisement of generic datasources |
+-------------+--------------------------------------+
Table 1
2.1.1.2. Telemetry Source Metric Object
The Telemetry Source Metric Object describe the metric to be exposed.
Property: name
Description: An identifier unique within this telemetry source.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: time-granularity
Description: Represents the time frame that the data represents
in seconds. I.e. is this a data set over 5 minutes, one hour,
etc..
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
Type: Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: data-percentile
Description: The percentile calculation the data represents,
i.e. 50 percentile would equate to the median over the time-
granularity. Lack of a data-percentile will mean that the data
is the average over the time representation.
Type: Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: latency
Description: Time in seconds that the data is behind of real
time. This is important to specify to help the uCDN to
understand how long it might take to reflect traffic
adjustments in the metrics.
Type: Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
2.1.2. Telemetry Capability Object Serialization
The following shows an example of Telemetry Capability including 2
metrics for a source, that is scoped to a footprint.
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
"capabilities": [
{
"capability-type": "FCI.Telemetry",
"capability-value": {
"sources": [
{
"id": "capacity_metrics_region1",
"type": "generic",
"metrics": [
{
"name": "egress_5m",
"time-granularity": 300,
"data-percentile": 50,
"latency": 1500
},
{
"name": "requests_5m",
...
}
]
}
]
},
"footprints": [
<footprint objects>
]
}
]
2.2. CapacityLimits Capability Object
The Capacity Limits Capability Object enables the dCDN to specify
traffic delegation limits to a uCDN within an FCI.Capabilities
advertisement. The limits specified by the dCDN will inform the uCDN
on how much traffic can be delegated to the dCDN. The limits
specified by the dCDN should be considered Not To Exceed (NTE)
limits. The limits should be based on near time telemetry data that
the dCDN provides to the uCDN. In any instance where there are
multiple limits, the uCDN must consider and honor all specified
limits and use the most restrictive limit when applicable.
Property: total-limits
Description: The top level limits for the footprint. This
limit represents traffic limits scoped to total delegation from
the uCDN towards the dCDN.
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
Type: A JSON array of Capacity Limit objects (see
Section 2.2.1).
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: host-limits
Description: Limits for particular CDN Domains. These limits
are more specific than the total-limits values since they are
scoped to a particual host value.
Type: A JSON array of Capacity Limit objects (see
Section 2.2.1).
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
2.2.1. Capacity Limit Object
The Capacity Limit Object is a JSON object which will be used with
the total-limits and host-limits objects.
Property: limit-type
Description: The units of maximum-hard and maximum-soft.
Type: String. One of the values listed in Section 2.2.1.1.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: maximum-hard
Description: The maximum unit of capacity that is available for
use.
Type: Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: maximum-soft
Description: A soft limit at which an upstream should consider
deducing traffic to prevent hitting the hard limit.
Type: Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: telemetry-source
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
Description: Mapping of each a particular limit to a specific
metric with relevant real-time data provided by a telemetry
source.
Type: Capcity Limit Telemetry Source object (see
Section 2.2.1.2).
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: host
Description: The CDN Domain to which the limit applies.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Only when included within a host-limits
array.
2.2.1.1. Capacity Limit Types
Below are listed the valid capacity limit types. Additional limits
would need to be specified and extended into this list. The values
specified here represent the types that were identified as being the
most relevant metrics for the purposes of traffic delegation between
CDNs.
+=================+=====================+
| Limit Type | Units |
+=================+=====================+
| egress | Bits per second |
+-----------------+---------------------+
| requests | Requests per second |
+-----------------+---------------------+
| storage-size | Total bytes |
+-----------------+---------------------+
| storage-objects | Count |
+-----------------+---------------------+
| sessions | Count |
+-----------------+---------------------+
| cache-size | Total bytes |
+-----------------+---------------------+
Table 2
2.2.1.2. Capacity Limit Telemetry Source Object
The Capacity Limit Telemetry Source Object refers to a specific
metric within a Telementry Source.
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
Property: id
Description: Reference to the "id" of a telemetry source
defined by a Telemetry Capability object.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: metric
Description: Reference to the "name" property of a metric
defined within a telemetry source of an FCI.Telemetry
Capability object.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
2.2.2. Capacity Limit Object Serialization
The following shows an example of an FCI.CapacityLimits object.
"capabilities": [
{
"capability-type": "FCI.CapacityLimits"
"capability-value": {
"total-limits": [
{
"limit-type": "egress",
"maximum-hard": 50000000000,
"maximum-soft": 25000000000,
"telemetry-source": {
"id": "capacity_metrics_region1",
"metric": "egress_5m"
}
}
],
"host-limits": [
{
"host": "serviceA.cdn.example.com",
"limits": [
"limit-type": "egress",
"maximum-hard": 20000000000,
"maximum-soft": 10000000000,
"telemetry-source": {
"id": "capacity_metrics_region1",
"metric": "egress_service2_5m"
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
}
]
},
{
"host": "serviceB.cdn.example.com",
"limits": [
"limit-type": "egress",
"maximum-hard": 30000000000,
"maximum-soft": 15000000000,
"telemetry-source": {
"id": "capacity_metrics_region1",
"metric": "egress_service2_5m"
}
]
}
]
},
"footprints": [
<footprint objects>
]
}
]
2.3. RequestedCapacityLimits Object
The MI.RequestedCapacityLimits Generic Metadata object, which is
cross referenced in CDNI Metadata Model Extensions [OC-MME], is fully
detailed within this document. To enable the uCDN to request changes
in dCDN limits, a new metadata object is introduced. Using this
object, a uCDN can request that a dCDN reconsider limits, as defined
by an FCI.CapacityLimits advertisement. The
MI.RequestedCapacityLimits object must be scoped within an
MI.HostIndex object and as such must be scoped to a host. The host
parameter value must be a CDN-Domain that the dCDN has been
configured to accept requests for. It is the responsibility of the
dCDN to make any required adjustments to the
FCI.CapacityLimits.total-limits if any per host limit updates might
exceed values specified via the FCI.CapacityLimits.total-limit. The
requested limits must specify a footprint, and that footprint should
be one in which the dCDN has advertised a capability to support.
Property: requested-limits
Description: Capacity Limits being requedted by the uCDN to the
dCDN.
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
Type: A JSON array of Requested Limits objects (see
Section 2.3.1).
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
2.3.1. Requsted Limits Object
The Requested Limit Object is build of an associated type, a value
assocaited with the type, and the footprints that the limit should be
associated with.
Property: limit-type
Description: A limit type as defined in Section 2.2.1.1.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: limit-value
Description: A unit of capacity defined in the maximum-hard
property of Section 2.2.1.
Type: Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: footprints
Description: The CDNI Footprint objects this requested limit
are associated with.
Type: A JSON array of CDNI Footprints (see [RFC8006]).
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
2.3.2. Telemetry Capability Object Serialization
The following shows an example of MI.RequestedCapacityLimits object.
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
{
"host": "serviceA.cdn.example.com",
"host-metadata": {
"metadata": [
...,
{
"generic-metadata-type": "MI.RequestedCapacityLimits",
"generic-metadata-value": {
"requested-limits": [
{
"limit-type": "egress",
"limit-value": 80000000000,
"footprints": [{
"footprint-type": "ipv4cidr",
"footprint-value": ["192.0.2.0/24", "198.51.100.0/24"]
}]
},
{
...
}
]
}
}
]
}
}
3. IANA Considerations
3.1. CDNI Payload Types
simialr to the type definitions described in section 7.1 of [RFC8006]
as well as the types described in section 6.1 of [RFC8008].
This document requests the registration of the three additional
payload types:
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
+============================+===============+
| Payload Type | Specification |
+============================+===============+
| FCI.Telemetry | RFCthis |
+----------------------------+---------------+
| FCI.CapacityLimits | RFCthis |
+----------------------------+---------------+
| MI.RequestedCapacityLimits | RFCthis |
+----------------------------+---------------+
Table 3
[RFC Editor: Please replace RFCthis with the published RFC number for
this document.]
3.1.1. CDNI FCI Telemetry Payload Type
Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to list the supported
telemetry sources and the metrics made available by each source).
Interface: FCI.
Encoding: See section Section 2.1.
3.1.2. CDNI FCI Capacity Limits Payload Type
Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to define Capacity
Limits based on a utilization metrics corresponding to telemetry
sources provided by the dCDN.
Interface: FCI.
Encoding: See section Section 2.2.
3.1.3. CDNI MI Requested Capacity Limits Payload Type
Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to allow a uCDN to
request a CapacityLimit update from a dCDN
Interface: MI.
Encoding: See section Section 2.3.
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
4. Security Considerations
This specification is in accordance with the CDNI Request Routing:
Footprint and Capabilities Semantics. As such, it is subject to the
security and privacy considerations as defined in Section 8 of
[RFC8006] and in Section 7 of [RFC8008] respectively.
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to TBD for TBD
(their guidance / contribution / reviews ...)
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8006] Niven-Jenkins, B., Murray, R., Caulfield, M., and K. Ma,
"Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI)
Metadata", RFC 8006, DOI 10.17487/RFC8006, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8006>.
[RFC8007] Murray, R. and B. Niven-Jenkins, "Content Delivery Network
Interconnection (CDNI) Control Interface / Triggers",
RFC 8007, DOI 10.17487/RFC8007, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8007>.
[RFC8008] Seedorf, J., Peterson, J., Previdi, S., van Brandenburg,
R., and K. Ma, "Content Delivery Network Interconnection
(CDNI) Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities
Semantics", RFC 8008, DOI 10.17487/RFC8008, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8008>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8804] Finkelman, O. and S. Mishra, "Content Delivery Network
Interconnection (CDNI) Request Routing Extensions",
RFC 8804, DOI 10.17487/RFC8804, September 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8804>.
6.2. Informative References
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
[OC-CII] Ryan, A., Ed., Rosenblum, B., Goldstein, G., Roskin, R.,
and G. Bichot, "Open Caching Capacity Insights -
Functional Specification (Placeholder before
publication)",
<https://www.streamingvideoalliance.org/books/open-cache-
capacity-insights-functional-specification/>.
[OC-MME] Goldstein, G., Ed., Power, W., Bichot, G., and A. Siloniz,
"CDNI Metadata Model Extensions", Version 00, 3 January
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
goldstein-cdni-metadata-model-extensions-00>.
[OC-RR] Finkelman, O., Ed., Hofmann, J., Klein, E., Mishra, S.,
Ma, K., Sahar, D., and B. Zurat, "Open Caching Request
Routing - Functional Specification", Version 1.1, 4
October 2019,
<https://www.streamingvideoalliance.org/books/open-cache-
request-routing-functional-specification/>.
[OCWG] "Open Caching Home Page",
<https://opencaching.streamingvideoalliance.org/>.
[RFC6707] Niven-Jenkins, B., Le Faucheur, F., and N. Bitar, "Content
Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Problem
Statement", RFC 6707, DOI 10.17487/RFC6707, September
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6707>.
[RFC7336] Peterson, L., Davie, B., and R. van Brandenburg, Ed.,
"Framework for Content Distribution Network
Interconnection (CDNI)", RFC 7336, DOI 10.17487/RFC7336,
August 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7336>.
[SVA] "Streaming Video Alliance Home Page",
<https://www.streamingvideoalliance.org>.
Authors' Addresses
Andrew Ryan
Limelight Networks
1465 N Scottsdale Road, Suite 500
Scottsdale
, AZ 85257
United States of America
Email: andrew@andrewnryan.com
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Insights Capability Advert October 2021
Ben Rosenblum
Vecima
4375 River Green Pkwy #100
Duluth
, GA 30096
United States of America
Email: ben@rosenblum.dev
Nir B. Sopher
Qwilt
6, Ha'harash
Hod HaSharon
4524079
Israel
Email: nir@apache.org
Ryan, et al. Expires 25 April 2022 [Page 19]