Minutes from CDNP BOF 12/12

["Mark Day" <markday@cisco.com>]

We are fortunate to have two sets of minutes; by reading both sets you can
get a better overall sense of the meeting than by reading either on its own.
Many thanks to both Aaron and Abbie for their note-taking.

Phil and Gary's presentation is at www.content-peering.org/CDNPBOF.ppt

--Mark


Minutes (taken by aaron@panamsat.com)
+++++++++++++++++++++

Content Distribution Internetworking BoF (CDNP)

  BoF Chair was Mark Day, Cisco (markday@cisco.com).

Agenda
  Bash agenda, find note taker
  Explain domain, summarize drafts
  Present draft charter
  Questions/ Discussion
  Summary

  Overview presentations by Gary Tomlinson, Enterra, Phil Rzewsi,
  Inktomi.  Discussion of what is Content Networking.  Content
  Networks defined to include heirarchical caching. CDNs defined to
  include request routing and surrogates.  Content Distribution
  Internetworking defined as interconnecting different CDN clouds.
  Surrogates defined to be a delivery server other than the origin.
  Delivery defined as the act of presenting content to the consumer.
  Distribution defined as the activitiy of moving a publisher's
  content from its origin to one or more surrogates.  Injection
  defined as publishing content into one or more CDNs by origin.
  Request-routing defined to mean finding a suitable surrogate.
  Accouting defined to mean measuring and recording distribution.  Two
  teams produced 8 of 9 drafts. Teams aligned with Content Bridge and
  Content Alliance.  Have worked out most issues.  Summary of draft
  followed:  -model- includes taxonomy, -scenarios- has
  requirements, -architecture- describes elements and systems,
  -known-request-routing- describes what people are currently doing
  for redirection, -aaa-reqs- describes anticipated AAA requirements
  for accounting, -oacp- describes a specific vertical implmentation
  of how (CB) system works, -cndistcs- describes what signalling CB
  system needs, -cnacct- describes how CB accounting works.

  Possible working group structure may include breaking into
  communities of interest for Accouting, Distribution,
  Request-routing.

  Comment: (Ted Hardie, Equinix) observed most CDNs are overlay
	   networks, do CPGs need to be co-resident with
	   surrogates.

  Draft charter: The goal of this group is to define protocols to
  allow the interoperation of separately--administred content
  networks...

  The group will define requirmeents and protocol specifications for 3
  types of content networking: Requirements and protocols for each of
  request routing, distribution, and accounting. Other documents
  include documents on scenarios, system architecture, known
  request-routing mechanisms, and vocabulary.

  Schedule:

  Dec 2000: bof meets, choose editors

  Feb 2001: first drafts fo requirements and protocols

  Mar 2001: merged updated vocaulary,  scenarios, architecture docs

  Mar 2001: IETF Minneapolis

  Jun 2001: new requrements, protocols docs

  Jul 2001 Last call for requirements

  Aug 2001: IETF London

  Oct 2001: last call for protocols

  Dec 2001: IETF Salt Lake City

  Questions:

  -- Aaron Falk, Net-36: Is streaming in scope? A: not decided, may just
     want to have hooks for later addition. Level of involvement will be
     in charter.

  -- Curious about trust model to prevent requests coming being served
     to non-peers.

  -- Question about scope. What about when CDNs peer with other
     service networks?  E.g., trans-coding services.  How do you talk
     to them when they don't have the request-routing services, etc?

  -- Dan Li, Cisco: Scalability of architecture very important.
     Possible overlap with WREC working group. A: WREC is focusing on
     intra-domain, CDNP is cross-domain.  Groups will share technology
     where necessary.

  -- Alex French, Via-Net Networks: isn't it a bit soon to start drafting
     protocols? Some of these problems are pretty hard.

  -- Are you following other resource allocation protocol development
     in the IETF?  These may offer some guidance in security and
     authentication.  A: can you ID the necessary groups?

  -- Is settlement within the scope?  A: wanted to decouple accounting
     from transfer of value.  May not be able to put definition of
     which way value flows may be difficult because it will depend
     heavily on the business model.  Suggestion: settlement is out of
     scope.

  -- Oliver Spatscheck, ATT: if accounting is standardized, what else does
     IETF need to standardize in terms of settlement?



  Closing comments: understand that schedule may be too agressive.

******************************************

Notes (taken by abbieb@nortelnetworks.com; transcribed by markday@cisco.com)

1. What are the dependencies on HTTP?
2. Does scope of work include streaming, where will the boundary be drawn?
3. For request routing, what is the criteria for standardizing content
exchange?
4. What is the trust model between CDNs. Are routes announced or not?
5. Security issues: what about a CDN that sucks up all your content?
6. Will the scope be extended to distribute content among non-CDN networks?
7. Scalability issues: will these be addressed in WREC or CDNP?
8. Is RUP [a protocol proposed in WREC] intended for one administrative
domain? What about multiple administrative domains?
9. Is it too soon to start drafting protocols?  Delay to February?
10. AAA or other resource allocation groups such as RAP?
11. Settlement, how it works: Is it in scope?
12. Intended to support any business model.
13. Accounting is for other things besides billing. Settlement is out of
scope.
14. Accounting information could be used for other information or purposes.
15. If you have acounting what else is needed for two parties to settle?
16. There are many things other than money that should be settled.
17. Work must be done across CDN. Primary work is primarily an experiment.