Preliminary minutes from IETF-53

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

[Thanks to Lisa Amini for taking these notes!  Comments/corrections to the
list, please.  --Mark]

Notes for CDI WG meeting on 3/19/2002

Phil Rzewski presented the meeting agenda and introduced the drafts that
would be discussed during the meeting.  The group is now officially
a IETF Working Group the drafts to be discussed were those which had
been started in prior BOFs and had been resubmitted as WG drafts.

Mark Day presented the CDI Model draft.  There are currently no known
issues with this draft, although there is some dependency on the other
drafts.  The charter has set a milestone of having all non-requirements
drafts (including the Model draft) published as RFCs by May 1,2002,
so Mark will issue a WG last call on the Model draft as soon as possible.


Phil Rzewski presented the CDI Scenarios draft.  Various editor's notes
have been resolved.  Phil will issue a last call for the draft and
intends to followup by submitting as an informational RFC.

The CDI Architecture draft currently does not have an editor so
Mark Day requested volunteers.  Micheal Speer volunteered to
take over as editor for the Architecture draft.

Abbie Barbir presented the Known CN Request Routing mechanisms draft.
Known feedback has been incorporated in the draft.  Abbie will issue
a last call for the draft and intends to submit as an informational
RFC.

Brad Cain presented the CDI Request Routing Requirements draft. The only
major outstanding issue for this draft is the security section.
Brad requested that anyone with input on security requirements
send comments on the CDI mailing list. Brad expects to resolve
these issues and request a last call before the next IETF meeting.

Lisa Amini presented the CDI Distribution Requirements draft.
The Content Signaling portion of the draft have some overlap with
the WEBI Resource Update Protocol (RUP) requirments draft.  Specifically,
RUP defines requirements for managing the consistency of objects
that are distributed to surrogates.

Phil Rzewski: Does WEBI have our requirements?
Lisa Amini: Yes, section 5.5.1 of the Distribution draft.
Phil Rzewski: Does the RUP draft reflect our requirements?
Lisa Amini: Not completely, but the document is still being edited.
They intend to cover Inter-CDN and Content Provider-to-CDN consistency,
so this would include our requirements for consistency.

Lisa Amini said that the Distribution draft requires additional work
on the portions covering streaming media before it could be moved
to last call.

Michael Speer: Does it cover RTSP?
Lisa Amini: Yes, but just in terms of MIME type and delivery type
(for example, RTSP/RTP).
Lisa Amini: Anyone interested in working on the streaming requirements
should see me after the meeting so we can determine if we should hold
a special session to discuss in detail.  I expect we should be able to
request last call before the next meeting.
Mark Day: Actually, it will need to be before then according to the
milestones set in the charter.
Lisa Amini: I expect to meet the milestone.

The next topic covered was the CDI AAA draft.  Mark Day asked if
there were any volunteers to take over the editor role for this
draft.  Dave Frascone volunteered to take over as editor and expects
to be able to complete revisions within the timeline for requirements
milestones.

Brad Cain presented a simple architectural proposal for CDI.  The
presentation included a high level overview of the protocols required
for CDI: injecting content into a CN, content replication, consistency
maintenance, and advertise topology information for request routing.

Kobus van der Merwe: Don't we also need the ability to advertise
capabilities before the distribution request?
Brad Cain: Yes, but I believe, if we wanted to simplify, this could be
negotiated offline.

Joseph Hui: Are you aware of UDDI?
Brad Cain: For replication?
Joseph Hui: No, for advertising.
Brad Cain: This may be a good way to go, I will check into it.

Mark Day asked if there were any additional items to be discussed.
There were none so the meeting was concluded.