Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities Semantics
RFC 8008

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: flefauch@cisco.com, cdni-chairs@ietf.org, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, cdni@ietf.org, "Francois Le Faucheur" <flefauch@cisco.com>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
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.