RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-cdi-scenarios-00.txt

["Reinaldo Penno"<reinaldo_penno@nortelnetworks.com>]

[ post by non-subscriber ]

Comments on the scenarios draft...

1 - The expression "real world" could be replaced by "effectively" or
"production networks" or "commercial networks". Real World only means that
there is protocols designed for the unreal world (whatever this definition
maybe).

2 - "Terms in ALL CAPS are defined in [1]". IMO this is should be removed.
There are tons of drafts that use definitions/terminology contained in some
other draft and do not use this all caps stuff. Besides it makes the draft
awkward to read since there is a profusion of all caps terms. Besides all
caps are usually used in titles, names, drawings, etc

3 - "For example, a BCN only interested in aggregating ACCOUNTING data". a
BCN (is) only interested

4 - "Note that once it's participating in
   DISTRIBUTION INTERNETWORKING and ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING, the
   SERVERS within the LCN effectively take on the role of SURROGATES"

   I suggest "Note that once SERVERS participate in distribution and
accounting internetworking, they effectively take the role of surrogates"

5 - "  The next step would be to configure CONTENT INTERNETWORKING
   protocols on the CIGs of the respective CNs in order to technically
   support the terms of the NEGOTIATED RELATIONSHIP". 

   I doubt that a CI protocol would uphold all parameters in a negotiated
relatioship since a lot of them are subjective, and other (even technically)
are measured by others means which has nothing to do with a routing protocol
(the easiest example is SLAs). Actually a routing protocol cannot enforce
them since a routing protocol resides on the control plane, not on teh data
plane.

6 - "That is, first the
   protocol configurations would be changed to cease the movement of
   ADVERTISEMENTS and/or ACCOUNTING data between the networks. After
   this, the NEGOTIATED RELATIONSHIP would be legally terminated."

IMO it could be the other way around. You terminate the relatioship and this
is the key to unhook whatever is hooked. 

7 - "2.  Commands affecting the DISTRIBUTION of CONTENT may be issued
       within the ORIGINATING CN, or may also be issued within the
       ENLISTED CN."

      But they are different commands, right? a enlisted CN can filter the
distribution of content, but cannot stop the distribution on the origin
itself. My point is an enlisted CN would have authority over its side of the
distribution, not the origin side.


I'll send more comments later.

regards,

Reinaldo




>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Rzewski [mailto:philr@inktomi.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 12:04 PM
>To: cdn@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-cdi-scenarios-00.txt
>
>
>This is a CDI Working Group Last Call for comments on
>draft-ietf-cdi-scenarios-00.txt. This last call closes 
>Tuesday, April 16,
>2002 (*). Please post any final comments you have on the draft 
>to this list
>by that date. If there are no substantive technical issues 
>raised by April
>16, we will forward this document to the IESG for publication as
>Informational. 
>
>The draft is available at
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cdi-scenarios-00.txt
>
>(*) The astute reader will notice that this is only 2-weeks, due to the
>fact that this document has already been in an informal last 
>call mode for
>some time before CDI was an official WG.
>
>--
>Phil Rzewski - Senior Architect - Inktomi Corporation                  
>650-653-2487 (office) - 650-303-3790 (cell) - 650-653-1848 (fax)