I do agree with mark here, I think we should try to ride on existing protocols.
Regarding the charter, it looks fine to me
From: Mark Day [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:45 AM
To: John Martin; cdn
Subject: RE: Proposed charter, please comment
> >A content network is an architecture of Web-based network
> >elements, arranged
> >for efficient delivery of digital content.
> Why Web-based? Does that exclude non-HTTP objects? Actually, if you just
> remove the phrase "Web-based", this reads just fine (to me).
While technically correct, I worry that this moves us in the wrong direction
(increasing generality). I consider it quite important that the working
group focus on the problems of delivering content within the frameworks of
DNS, HTTP, RTSP, etc. as they exist now.
For example, I think it would be a tremendous waste of time to use this
group to develop a system for interoperation of content networks that
required replacing the existing protocol infrastructure of the web. That
could well be a worthy and fun project, but it would be a research project
as opposed to a standards project.
Now, I'm pretty sure that you're not trying to get us to do that, but I want
to be sure that the charter rules it out. I would be happy with more
careful phrasing, and perhaps we need to catalog the things that we will not
do instead of relying on the fuzzy phrase "Web-based." But I am wary of
broadening the scope to any arrangement of network elements that delivers