[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CDI Distribution Draft
> Sent by: email@example.com
> To: Lisa Amini/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> Subject: Re: CDI Distribution Draft
> At 09:31 AM 11/26/2001 -0500, Lisa Amini wrote:
> > > > Specifically, a master Resource Group could be defined
> > > > would be used as the channel to communicate which Resource
> > > > to be added/withdrawn from service. The CIG would then
> > > > channels to receive cache coherency messages for these
> > > > Groups.
> > >
> > > Yah, this is a nice architecture point for an end-to-end CDN or
> > > system. Good to mention it in your draft.
> > >
> > > However, it is out side of RUP scope. RUP defines the operation
> within one
> > > channel. How multiple channels are tied together or communicated to
> > cache
> > > is a separate matter, and can potentially use any one of many
> >I wasn't aware of any standardized solutions for this -- can you provide
> >some pointers?
> e.g., manual config, SDP, WSDL/UDDL, PNP, ...
I agree on the manual config, but I don't think sending SDP files for this
is a good idea. WSDL/UDDI is a good mechanism for describing these groups,
but what is currently available does not encompass what we are doing. I
personally think PNP would be overkill, but I'll check into it...I'll followup
with a more concrete proposal.
> It's fine to define a master control channel for tieing together all "CDN
> channels" -- I'm actually quite interested in defining one. I just think it
> needs to be tackled as a separate building block from RUP.
> >The metadata is as listed in Section 5.5, item 8. I believe some of these
> >fields map well to RUP (such as the Content Set (Resource Group),
> >Authoritive Source (Content Location)), but others such as the Accounting
> >Format Accounting Type, Request Routing Type, Time Frame (not the time for
> >which the object is valid, but instead the time for which distribution
> >services are being requested), ...). So, yes, this metadata is important
> >for interoperability, but some is also specific to CI.
> >Given the need for interoperability and the fact that the current RUP
> >document appears to be shifting toward covering both intra- and inter-
> >domain, I consider it reasonable to specify this info in the RUP document.
> >However, if it does not, as long as the RUP document does not preclude
> >metadata being communicated as associated with content or resource
> >groups, then we could publish a CI-specific document to cover these
> sounds like the right approach. Could the CDI Distribution reflect the
> above comment / clarification?
Yes, I'll clarify in the draft.