[CDNi] Protocol Action: 'Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Footprint Types: Subdivision Code and Footprint Union' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-11.txt)
The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Tue, 24 January 2023 16:53 UTC
Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: cdni@ietf.org
Delivered-To: cdni@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB28EC151538; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 08:53:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 9.6.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, cdni-chairs@ietf.org, cdni@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <167457918195.53642.13142568055192383106@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 08:53:01 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/F2ZpeeevEut04pVS0Ek0b1klKL0>
Subject: [CDNi] Protocol Action: 'Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Footprint Types: Subdivision Code and Footprint Union' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-11.txt)
X-BeenThere: cdni@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: "This list is to discuss issues associated with the Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks \(CDNs\)" <cdni.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cdni>, <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cdni/>
List-Post: <mailto:cdni@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni>, <mailto:cdni-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:53:02 -0000
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Footprint Types: Subdivision Code and Footprint Union' (draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types-11.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Content Delivery Networks Interconnection Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Murray Kucherawy and Francesca Palombini. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-additional-footprint-types/ Technical Summary Open Caching architecture is a use case of Content Delivery Networks Interconnection (CDNI) in which the commercial Content Delivery Network (CDN) is the upstream CDN (uCDN) and the ISP caching layer serves as the downstream CDN (dCDN). This document supplements the CDNI Metadata Footprint Types defined in RFC 8006. The Footprint Types defined in this document can be used for Footprint objects as part of the Metadata interface (MI) defined in RFC 8006 or the Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface (FCI) defined in RFC 8008. The document also updates RFC 9241 with relevant ALTO entity domain types. The defined Footprint Types are derived from requirements raised by Open Caching but are also applicable to CDNI use cases in general. Working Group Summary The contents of the document have been reviewed by the CDNI WG, with discussion on the list and during our IETF sessions. There was fairly broad consensus. There was extensive discussion about the semantics of footprint combination (both the original intent of the authors and what the actual implementation should be). Accepting the shepherd's assertion on the original intent (as an original author), the wg came to a solution to meet implementation needs. Approaching WGLC, a question was raised as to whether an even more granular footprint should be specified (i.e., coordinate boundary-based vs ISO3166-2). It was not clear that a use case existed yet for the more granular footprint, but existing commercial need for ISO3166-2 was expressed, so the wg chose to more forward with the simpler solution for now (with the option to revisit more granular footprint options in the future). During WGLC, RFC9241 made it through the RFCEditor queue and the WG consulted with them wrt the impact a new footprint type would have on RFC9241. Multiple options were discussed on the list and at IETF114, and it was decided to incorporate ALTO IANA registrations in this document to allow RFC9241 to use the new ISO3166-2 footprint type as well. Document Quality The WG has reviewed the new footprint types and agreed that they are reasonable and valuable. We are requesting publication as "Proposed Standard" as the footprint types extend the exiting RFC8006 proposed standard. As one of the primary authors of both RFC8006 and RFC8008, and acting as both the expert reviewer and shepherd, the shepherd feels that the contents are straight forward and inline with the purposes and goals of RFC8006 and RFC8008. The shepherd's understanding is that SVTA vendors have implemented these extensions. Personnel Document Shepherd: Kevin J. Ma Responsible AD: Francesca Palombini