Minutes IETF118: cdni
minutes-118-cdni-00

CDNI WG Minutes
IETF 118 Prague
Chairs: Kevin Ma and Sanjay Mishra
AD: Francesca Palombini
Recording: https://www.meetecho.com/ietf118/recordings/#CDNI

Chair slides:
Errata 7657 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7657:
- Kevin/Sanjay: It's just a typo in the example; the normative text is correct
- Francesca: Will mark the errata verified
- Francesca: ACME draft waiting on a new revision
- Sanjay: Talked to Frederic and he will make sure all emails have responses

draft-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions - Ben Rosenblum (3:35 min)
- Ben: Addressed comments from Kevin and Sanjay
- Ben: Are we ready for WGLC
- Sanjay: The document looks in good shape
- Kevin: From the last IETF there was a question about IANA registries, what
did we decide? - Ben: We decided to do registries for some and not others -
Kevin: Will review the updated draft and assuming it's address we should be
ready for WGLC.  Will follow up on list.

draft-ietf-cdni-https-delegation-subcerts - Christophe Neumann(3:40 min)
- Christophe: Addressed comments from SecDir early review: encrypting the
optional private key - Christophe: Are we ready for WGLC - Sanjay: Make sure to
confirm on the mailing list with the SecDir reviewer.  The draft looks good. 
Sent comments to the list. - Kevin: I agree, have Mike confirm the list. 
Otherwise the draft looks good once Sanjay's comments are addressed. After that
we're probably ready for WGLC

draft-ietf-cdni-ci-triggers-rfc8007bis - Sanjay Mishra (3:45 min)
- Sanjay: Addressed IANA comments, working on comments from Alan, need to
address comments from Kevin, should have a new draft in December ready for WGLC
- Kevin: I still need to review the examples and the IANA sections.  If we can
address Alan's comments as a separate extensions draft that would be better,
unless fundamental changes to the protocol need to get into base draft -
Sanjay: Setting up working sessions with Alan to resolve

draft-ietf-cdni-protected-secrets-metadata - Ben Rosenblum (3:50 min)
- Ben: Addressed Kevin's comments, still needs some sequence diagrams
- Ben: Open question: Should we keep FCI objects?  There's no precedence for
reusing MI objects for FCI. - Kevin: Yes, we didn't need it with the original
set of obejcts, but I prefer less redundancy - Ben: Agree with less redundancy,
just wasn't clear if that was acceptable - Glenn: FCI objects make it clearer -
Ben: Will take the question to the list

draft-ietf-cdni-edge-control-metadata - Will Power/Glenn Goldstein? (3:55 min)
- Glenn: Addressed Kevin's comments
- Glenn: Ready for WGLC?
- Kevin: I need to review updated draft and encourage everyone to do the same. 
Once reviewed, we can go from there.

draft-ietf-cdni-edge-control-metadata - Alfonso Siloniz (4:05 min)
- Alfonso: Addressed Kevin's comments
- Alfonso: Sent responses to open question about mts/sfd
- Kevin: I didn't get a chance to review the updated draft.  Will respond to
the questions on the list

draft-power-metadata-expression-language - Will Power (4:15 min)
Glenn presenting for Will having technical difficulty
- Glenn: Work on the MEL has gone through many rounds of review in SVTA, now
looking for adoption in CDNI - Glenn: Draft defines the expression language,
one MI object, and one FCI object - Kevin: FCI object is definitely within
scope, but the MEL does not seem CDNI-specific, should it be in HTTP - Chris
Lemmons: It's not entirely generic and not CDNI-specific.  It is
intermediary-specific, and as such, CDNI might be more excited to do the work -
no comment on whether it fits in the charter. - Kevin: Sanjay and I need to
talk with Francesca about how it fits in the charter or if we need to modify
it, or if we should shop it around to other working groups - Francesca: No
additional comment at this time - Sanjay: Agree, need to look and see if the
motivation for MEL is a fit for CDNI - Yoav Gressel: The language is generic,
but it is important to CDNI use case.  It is required for CDNI to work.  Could
add metadata properties, but this language would open up the domain. - Chris:
This language is required for different intermediaries to communicate in an
interoperable way; it is a protocol agreement, so it belongs in CDNI - Alan
Arolovitch: It is more broadly applicable and probably could be extended and
used beyond just CDNI, but there is interest in building/adopting this and the
proxy cache scope is critical here - Rajeev RK: Votes to include this work -
Alfonso: If not this language, we still need this functionality to configure
the dCDN from uCDN; making it usable for other applications is good, but it's
useful for CDNs - Kevin: There's cleary enthusiasm for the work.  Sanjay and I
just need to discuss how it fits in the charter - Glenn: The language is
generic, but proposed variables and functions are CDNI specific

draft-goldstein-processing-stages-metadata - Glenn Goldstein (4:30 min)
- Rajeev: This is powerful for lightweight implementation of other standards
like TraceData/ProxyStatus/CMCD/CMSD. - Sanjay: Not clear on how processing
stages are used to implement CMCD - Rajeev: Example, adding a new variable to
CMCD required modifying the player; could do it with MEL/processing stages -
Glenn: Could synthesize CMSD headers - Rajeev: Could send unique headers to
clients (e.g., for calculated bandwidth) - Glenn: Looking for WG adoption -
Kevin: Have a similar question to MEL wrt how it fits in the charter - Kevin:
Show of hands on support for processing stages: 14 yes - Kevin: Sanjay and I
will discuss how it fits in the charter and continue the disucssion on the list

draft-rosenblum-cdni-logging-extensions - Ben Rosenblum (4:45 min)
- Ben: RFC7937 only defines one specific format and is insufficient
- Ben: SVTA did a survey of operators to get requirements, e.g., modern
formats, archives, transports and updates for modern privacy regulations -
Rajeev: Draft is backwards compatible with RFC7937 - Rajeev: I support the
draft.  With broader adoption, automated transfer becomes more necessary.
Useful for billing - Ben: The work will happen either way.  If not by CDNI,
through proprietary protocols - Rajeev/Ben: - Kevin: poll on who as read the
draft: 7 yes, 7 no - Ben: SVTA work will continue; if CDNI WG is interested, we
can see how to collaborate - Kevin: I need to read the draft and encourage
others to read the draft - Kevin: The issues raised are important and the
original draft lacks capabilities needed today - Sanjay: Please read the draft
and send comments to the list.  It will help gauge interest

Cache Management - Alan Arolovitch (5:00 min)
- Alan: Need more automation of pre-position/invalidation/purge using triggers
- Chris: Are you familiar with cache groups and cache invalidation API work in
HTTPbis?  There is a large overlap.  Is this work for CDNI or for a CDN in
general? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-groups/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-http-invalidation/ - Alan: Is
it for individual cache management? - Chris: Includes discovering API endpoints
and ask an entire CDN to purge a URI - Alan: This extends existing CI/T, so
need to harmonize that with HTTPbis work - Kevin: Is something not supported by
URI pattern matching or is URI pattern matching just too cumbersome and
grouping is more efficient? - Alan: Both.  Not feasible Example: Manifest +
chunks + subtitles + thumbnails are not easily pattern matched.  Makes
automation easier if upstream can publish tags with content.

Named footprint - Alan Arolovitch (5:15 min)
- Alan: Named footprints come before ALTO
- Sanjay: Draft has expired. Suggest resubmitting v1 and we can discuss on the
list