[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Content [Distribution Network] Peering (was Re: Candidate re-charter/new WG)
- To: Fred Douglis <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Content [Distribution Network] Peering (was Re: Candidate re-charter/new WG)
- From: Mark Nottingham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:01:32 -0800
- Cc: Phil Rzewski <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Gary Tomlinson <email@example.com>, Patrik Fältström <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Wojtek Sylwestrzak <W.Sylwestrzak@icm.edu.pl>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivery-date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:58:27 -0800
- Envelope-to: email@example.com
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
Stepping back a little bit, it might be useful to explore the relationship
between "content" (a term that has recently been used a lot, but is poorly
defined) to "resource", as used by the W3C (e.g., URI, etc.).
"Content" might be defined as the bits that are shoved around on the wire;
"Resource" is the service, and describes a higher-level concept. Anything
with a URI is a resource.
Also, Jeff Mogul's discussion of resource/entity/variant/instance in section
might be relevant as well.
I haven't thought deeply about this, and I'm not suggesting that we call
them "Resource Distribution Networks" (yet!), but the bandying about of
'content' without a solid definition has disturbed me for a while.
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 03:08:26PM -0500, Fred Douglis wrote:
> You make a good point: "CDN Peering" may be too specific to cover the scenario
> you've described, unless one is generous with the definition of a CDN.
> However, I think "Content Peering" is a poor term, because we're not peering
> "content", we're peering entities that deliver content. (This is similar to
> the forwarding-versus-routing debate that has hit the cdn mailing list today).
> I'm not sure I have a third suggestion that I like more than these two, just
> that I think "Content Peering" is the wrong direction to take this. For now I
> would be inclined to include your scenario under the CDN framework.
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)