[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: CDNP naming
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: CDNP naming
- From: "Phil Rzewski" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 22:35:33 -0800
- Delivery-date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 22:38:36 -0800
- Envelope-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
That certainly gets us half the way there, in my mind: It takes the
immediate emphasis off the term "CDN". For the purposes of the BOF, that's
good by me.
On a going-forward basis, I'd like to be a pest and say that I'm still not
100% comfortable with the name... but perhaps no name exists that everyone
could like. In a separate e-mail, Eric Dean made a nice statement about why
Content Peering isn't a great term:
"I do believe that Content Peering somewhat implies an exchange of content.
That may be one particular mode of an interconnect; however, there are also
other potential modes whereby references to content (URL) along with
certain characteristics about the content (Headers) are exchanged."
As I read it, an ideal term would make room for exchange of both content
itself, as well as meta-data. Therefore, my response would be to go with
"Content Layer Internetworking", as it turns "Content" into an adjective
rather than a noun. Furthermore, by not naming any one specific thing being
internetworked (distribution, delivery, accounting) it makes room under the
umbrella for all these and more.
But if Content Distribution Internetworking becomes the name, I just wanna
state for the record that I'll throw water on anyone that ever tries to
tell me any certain cross-network content-layer data exchange is "out of
scope" for the working group unless it somehow applies to distribution. :)
At 10:26 AM 12/1/00 -0500, Mark Day wrote:
>I fear I may have provided bad guidance to Phil on this issue. I noticed
>just now that the agenda for our BOF has the name Content Distribution
>Internetworking already. I had provided that as a possible alternative, and
>either the ADs or the secretariat must have chosen it in preference to our
>Since that name seems workable and accurate, I would suggest that we go with
>it rather than debating further. And it can be part of the group lore as to
>why "Content Distribution Internetworking" has the acronym "cdnp".
>Mark Stuart Day
>+1 (781) 663-8310
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> > Fred Douglis
> > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 10:10 AM
> > To: Phil Rzewski
> > Cc: email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: CDNP naming
> > Phil,
> > I agree by and large with your summary. And at one point, you suggested
> > "content internetworking" as an alternative. In fact, I'm not
> > sure if that was
> > mentioned previously, but in one of the strawman calls, we had the same
> > discussion and I threw out "Content Distribution
> > Internetworking", intended as
> > tongue-in-cheek, but it seemed like people picked up on it. While in the
> > drafts, it didn't end up taking hold, I'd already mentioned it to
> > the person
> > in charge of AT&T's CDN (from the business perspective) and I've
> > heard him
> > using that term in place of "peering" since then.
> > I believe that one of the major stumbling blocks to the term
> > "peering" is the
> > relationship with settlements, and the question of whether it is
> > bilateral.
> > The CDNP BOF clearly covers cases where traditional "peering"
> > doesn't apply,
> > so I hope when it's chartered as a working group, the name better
> > reflects the
> > spectrum of possibilities.
> > Fred
Phil Rzewski - Senior Architect - Inktomi Corporation
650-653-2487 (office) - 650-303-3790 (cell) - 650-653-1848 (fax)