Re: [CDNi] Preparing draft-ietf-cdni-problem-statement for WG Last Call

[Ben Niven-Jenkins <[e-mail]>]

On 28 Oct 2011, at 17:49, Woundy, Richard wrote:

> >   o  CableLabs, SNIA and ITU have defined (or are working on) definitions for content related metadata definitions and specification for its distribution.
>  
> Are we referring to these CableLabs specifications?
>  
> http://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/MD-SP-CONTENTv3.0-I01-100812.pdf
> http://www.cablelabs.com/projects/metadata/specifications/specifications30.html

I believe so, the reference we have currently have for CableLabs is this URI

http://www.cablelabs.com/projects/metadata/primer/

which provides some background and has a link to the actual CableLabs metadata specifications.

> Do we have references for the SNIA and ITU specs as well?

The current reference we have for SNIA is this URI:

http://www.snia.org/tech_activities/standards/curr_standards/cdmi

which has links to the CDMI v1.0 and CDMI v1.0.1 specifications.

I'm not sure what the right ITU reference is for metadata but if someone can suggest one I will include it.

Ben


>  
> -- Rich
>  
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Francois Le Faucheur
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 5:28 AM
> To: Ben Niven-Jenkins
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [CDNi] Preparing draft-ietf-cdni-problem-statement for WG Last Call
>  
> HI Ben,
>  
> Comments below:
>  
> On 17 Oct 2011, at 13:07, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
> 
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> At the last IETF I said I would try to prepare a version of the CDNI problem Statement (draft-ietf-cdni-problem-statement) that is ready for WG Last Call before IETF82 in Taipei.
> 
> As part of that I have reviewed the complete draft and made some minor editorial clean-ups to my working copy. However, there were a number of other areas where I think changes need to be made to the document that I think warrant wider WG review/consensus and I have listed them below along with the changes I am proposing.
> 
> Could you please provide your feedback on the areas/proposed text I have highlighted below as well as any other areas of the document that you think require additional work/cleanup before you consider the document is ready for a WG Last Call.
> 
> 1) Section 2: Update the last paragraph to reference the WG draft for CDNI use cases and remove reference to draft-watson-cdni-use-cases, i.e.
> 
> OLD:
>   Use cases for CDN Interconnection are further discussed in
>   [I-D.bertrand-cdni-use-cases] (which contains a merged set of use
>   cases previously presented in [I-D.watson-cdni-use-cases] and
>   [I-D.bertrand-cdni-use-cases-00]).
> NEW:
>   Use cases for CDN Interconnection are further discussed in
>   [I-D.ietf-cdni-use-cases].
>  
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Section 4 contains an introduction and 2 sub-sections (4.1 & 4.2) that are each just a couple of sentences, so I propose merging them into a single section and changing the first two sentences of section 4 appropriately, i.e.
> 
> OLD:
>   This section expands on how CDNI interfaces can reuse and leverage
>   existing protocols.  First the "reuse instead of reinvent" design
>   principle is restated, then each inetrface is discussed individually
>   with example candidate protocols that can be considered for reuse or
>   leverage. 
> NEW:
>   This section expands on how CDNI interfaces can reuse and leverage
>   existing protocols before describing each CDNI interface individually
>   and highlighting example candidate protocols that could considered for
>   reuse or leveraging to implement the CDNI interfaces.  
>  
> Fine by me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Section 5 is currently title "Gap Analysis of relevant Standardisation and Research Activities" but following the agreement at the last IETF to move the generic descriptions of other activities into an appendix Section 5 no longer references any research activities so I propose changing the title to" Gap Analysis of relevant Standardisation activities".
>  
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 4) After the general introduction in Section 5 there are only sections that outline other research activities
>  
> I think you mean "standardization activities"
> 
> 
> for Content Acquisition (section 5.1) and CDNI Metadata (Section 5.2) but there are not sections for the other CDNI interfaces (Control, Logging, Request Routing).
> 
> The reason for the lack of text is IMO because there is no current or past standardisation activity addressing those areas but the document currently does not mention that and therefore gives the impression of being incomplete.
> 
> I therefore propose making the following change to the last sentence in Section 5:
> 
> OLD:
>   The following sections will summarize the existing work of the
>   standard bodies above against the CDNI problem space.
> NEW:
>   The following sections will summarize the existing work of the
>   standard bodies above against the CDNI problem space. Section 5.1
>   summarises existing interfaces that could be leveraged for content
>   acquisition between CDNs and Section 5.2 summarises existing metadata 
>   specifications that may be applicable to CDNI. To date there is no
>   existing standardisation activities in the areas of the remaining
>   CDNI interfaces (CDNI Request Routing, CDNI Control and CDNI Logging).
>  
> Fine.
>  
> Just a couple editorial suggestions:
>  
> s/of the standard bodies above/of the standard bodies listed earlier/
>  
> s/there is no existing standardisation activities/we are not aware of any standardisation activities/
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 5) I also propose using the following text for the third bullet in Section 5 unless someone can suggest more appropriate text to summarise in a sentence or two any CDN metadata related work in other standards bodies.
> 
> OLD:
>   o  <TODO: Add a sentence on ITU>
> NEW:
>   o  CableLabs, SNIA and ITU have defined (or are working on)
>      definitions for content related metadata definitions and specification
>      for its distribution. However, they do not include metadata specific
>      to the distribution of content within a CDN or between interconnected
>      CDNs.
>  
> That works for me. It would be good to get that validated by someone aware of the work of these bodies.
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 6) Section 10.1 lists a number of "normative references", if we adopt the proposed changes above it will end up containing "normative" references to:
>   - draft-ietf-cdni-use-cases
>   - draft-bertrand-cdni-experiements
>   - draft-jenkins-cdni-names
>   - RFC2119
> 
> After reading through the text of the Problem Statement again, I am not convinced that the Problem Statement references any of those documents normatively as the 3 CDNI related drafts are referenced in a context where they are for further information and the Problem Statement does not make use of any of the capitalised terms defined in RFC2119.
> 
> Therefore, unless anyone objects I will move the references for the three CDNI related drafts to the "Informative References" section and remove the reference for RFC2119.
>  
> I agree we don't want normative ref to the other cdni drafts as the problem statement is setting the stage for the other documents.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Francois
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CDNi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni
>  
> <image001.jpg>
> 
> Francois Le Faucheur
> Distinguished Engineer
> Corporate Development
> [e-mail]
> Phone: [phone]
> Mobile: [phone]
> 
> 
> Cisco Systems France
> Greenside
> 400 Ave de Roumanille
> 06410 Sophia Antipolis
> France
> Cisco.com
> 
>  
> 
> <image002.gif>
>  Think before you print.
> 
> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
> 
> Cisco Systems France, Société à responsabiité limitée, Rue Camille Desmoulins – Imm Atlantis Zac Forum Seine Ilot 7 92130 Issy les Moulineaux, Au capital de 91.470 €, 349 166 561 RCS Nanterre, Directeur de la publication: Jean-Luc Michel Givone.
> 
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
> 
>