|
With ref to this extract from you rmail:
The reality of CDI is that we've gone from
having
"lots of CDN operators, many interested in interoperation" to having
"very
few CDN operators, all focused on survival". You can't make
progress on
standardization efforts when the stakeholders are unwilling or
unable to
participate.
I agree with you in toto.
I personally feel that the cost of CDN hardware like the
Content Engine or Switch is quite expensive for the times we are in now.
Not that we need Content Networking less , actually there is a
greater need for really fast access of high bandwidth consuming multimedia
converged content.
Solutions like Justin Chapweske's Tornado Web Raid CDN which is
essentially an intelligent peer to peer solution based on an intelligent content
gateway inside the corporate net, and intelligent "onion peers", merits
attention for a solution for today for fast access of content rich media.
I refer you to :
for information and comments re Justin's solution.
With Rgds
jayasurya
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Day
[mailto:markday@cisco.com]
Sent: Thu 4/3/2003 12:21 PM
To: Elisa Turrini; cdn@ops.ietf.org
Cc:
Subject: RE: Is CDI dead?
I think it's important to distinguish a working group from an
interest
group.
No-one is saying that CDI is an uninteresting
topic. Many of us expect that
the subject will once again attract a
sufficient level of attention in the
future to warrant standardization
efforts. But the IETF does not charter
working groups based on "2 or 3"
people who want to comment on things. And
a working group that has
reached the point of being defended on the basis
that there might still be
a few people who want to talk about things is
basically not functioning as
a working group any more.
There are many interesting things that are
not standardized. (And there are
many things standardized that are not very
interesting!) It's important to
keep track of what kind of group
you're dealing with and what kind of work
is to be done there. The
reality of CDI is that we've gone from having
"lots of CDN operators, many
interested in interoperation" to having "very
few CDN operators, all
focused on survival". You can't make progress on
standardization
efforts when the stakeholders are unwilling or unable
to
participate.
--Mark
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org]On
Behalf Of
> Elisa Turrini
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:39
AM
> To: cdn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Is CDI
dead?
>
>
> [ post by non-subscriber. with the massive
amount of spam, it is
> easy to miss
> and therefore
delete posts by non-subscribers. if you wish to
regularly
> post from an address that is not subscribed to
this mailing list, send a
> message to
<listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the
alternate
> address added to the list of addresses from
which submissions are
> automatically accepted.
]
>
> On 18-03-2003 23:28, "jayasurya venugopalan"
<jaya.venu@wipro.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I
feel if even only 2or 3 of us are interested we should carry on.
> >
Some of us may not be in a postion to actively contribute but
> we could
well
> > observe and comment.
>
> I agree with
you.
>
> I wrote two short papers about CDI and I am still
investigating the CDI
> issues.
>
> You can find the papers
at:
> http://www.cs.unibo.it/~turrini/PAPERS/
>
>
Comments are welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
>
Elisa
>
>
>
>
|