[alto] Progress on CDNI FCI Draft

Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com> Wed, 03 July 2019 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3AEC120091; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 06:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CrzewSgK_ZNG; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 06:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x831.google.com (mail-qt1-x831.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::831]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC9541200C4; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 06:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x831.google.com with SMTP id i34so881188qta.6; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 06:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zkJLCFxh25B/uvsPBtf9F5x1jK/9uKltWSBihQNfYGQ=; b=GZZqNi4E7UaGLZgkg/Pmn0SEwk9aefMf7HYV/T6C7a11h9IlGlv3iqh2KM7J6MAX7Q K5H+guX1GvoLReBtaiun4Yw7S69RQBU9VC0QI1l3yunZFhji8D+mV8Smu1oD0m9yDHiy lJ4MKizuoGDrd6wCoazSLbZCefvcNHM/G8OZAiY5d+yIxchTtf+orXVBO3q8oAvS8zel W/WNk+7zyazPwosfe5FpRD8+Yfqu1tqqfSmCk9ZMeWE9kAiYjt01GFNkq8ePnaGatEhc FvMQxHaNZhM0pPUYtkdgKbJQZRQg7WPArzRJSv6Y3ndGY+9GFhhzT5vaCx993UwWm2BY FHdA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zkJLCFxh25B/uvsPBtf9F5x1jK/9uKltWSBihQNfYGQ=; b=GmpVNfK+H6ZyqjXlcpiArhsRJ5Iq544ILFcOA3QCbBz42eoYCChXW2P4E2puR6ViEt 6r4OPGyixwdpJispeYAaUsTrGjeArnNkJIDD8/3KDWOJx+p8VLebSn6FqCJFKOpV4Pjm LlCXG/p0a92qbu7tRvLrHpiMldN0Mi+NNPXyYTZDxmCT+ODj/zBNbpcEyVAxPSrWTAU9 /EyPAi9EhH7UOONUS+7PLQ3LEr6UrZvlJYBGSchIvkXFyBQQ+JbxR8SR3ZBzRsUFXnmX w3BVWaoU9neLiQR+o1dow+bAuU1JoCiC9ddgFcDgNuZCDZreRNEKbeDRDEIz9G9hTYSg jTSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU3VqCrcyjrkRoUKkYYhYnrNHp1Qz7wZKDyRuATpKxn9BhnjTY3 4El1xIiUdnx3Hasb/Qo+V0gUCqYZKfUfgIfcNTk+xRHZI6Y=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy+bNaQElnSVhaiCQFIZ3v2YmryY8MR+CFhQ9Re8mg+Gokw82xFPoFPiMVe4pbEcxw+1aKV8Kc9WJRMPNroFCk=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:3314:: with SMTP id z20mr21553375ywz.341.1562160647397; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 06:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Jensen Zhang <jingxuan.n.zhang@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 09:30:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAbpuyq8QRYYvn_rO37V_vqkB-zwCZpyP3XL56OZwGgzRukmZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto@ietf.org, IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000078674b058cc6deb2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/rU87cd8jyGSVuCB458M7w8e2yFM>
Subject: [alto] Progress on CDNI FCI Draft
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 13:30:51 -0000

Hi authors of  draft-ietf-cdni-request-routing-alto,

Do we have any updates on the CDNI FCI document since IETF 104? Considering
the CDNI FCI is an important use case of ALTO and a potential use case of
the unified properties, I would like to resume the discussion and make this
work move forward.

I have the following questions to the current CDNI FCI document:

1. According to the discussion we did in IETF 104, the design of the
original CDNI FCI encoding in RFC8006/8008 is not an object-map. So it does
not match the Map service design in the ALTO framework. Do we still want to
reuse the encoding, or design new encodings to match the ALTO Map service
framework?
2. Do we strongly require a more general query service for CDNI FCI? And
what kind of queries are really required? Could we have some use cases to
motivate the requirements?

I would like to engage in the discussion and the document revision
if possible. I am looking forward to receiving the feedback from coauthors
and other WG members.

Thanks,
Jensen