Re: [CDNi] Triggers regexp: draft-finkelman-cdni-sva-extensions-00.txt

Hi Ori,

  (as an individual) I personally don't see any reason to combine time and geolocation; it over complicates things, imo.  I didn't see a problem with providing a time without timezone to be interpreted as "local time".  I didn't think that being able to send a trigger that said "do this at 1am local time" was a terribly difficult concept - it probably just needs some textual clarification and a more precise definition of how the json should be parsed and interpreted, to remove any UTC vs explicit timezone vs "local time" ambiguity?

thanx.

--  Kevin J. Ma

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 7:03 AM, Ori Finkelman <orif@qwilt.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> Another question regarding the trigger extensions.
> It was suggested that in order to execute a trigger (for example pre-position) in "local time" of each geography, one should combine the geo location extension with the time window extension.
> For example, if pre-position should occur on 3AM local time, it would be set for 11AM UTC for California , and 8AM UTC on New-York
> While this works logically, it means that the user needs to state for each relevant geography the UTC time for execution, instead of just stating the required local time and let the dCDN handle it per geography.
> 
> My question is that given that we add trigger extensions, how would be able to state such multiple cases.
> 
> Take the above example, I can see two alternatives :
> 1. Issue two separate trigger commands, one with Geo = CA, and time = 11AM UTC, and a second command with Geo = NY and time = 8AM UTC.
>      while this works, it requires a separate command for each geo.
> 
> 2. Wrap the extension objects with extension groups, such that each group must be applied together. For example this trigger command will have two extension groups, one with Geo=CA and Time=11AM UTC, and the other with Geo=NY and time=8AM UTC.
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to get some feedback on this,
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ori
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 7:41 PM, Ori Finkelman <orif@qwilt.com> wrote:
>> I also prefer pcre only.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018, 17:01 Kevin J. Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would favor triggers matching uri signing, i.e., PCRE only, to simplify interoperability requirements; unless there's a really good reason implementers should have to support multiple standards?
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 7, 2018, at 3:39 AM, Ori Finkelman <orif@qwilt.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>> Regarding the addition of a regular expression match for triggers, mainly for invalidation.
>>>> What should be the regexp standard we use, PCRE ? POSIX BRE or ERE ?
>>>> Does the type of regrexp need to be exchanged via the interface (trigger and capability) ?
>>>> 
>>>> Example 1: assuming we support only one specific type of regrex
>>>> 
>>>>     { 
>>>>        "regex": "/^(https:\/\/video\.example\.com)\/([a-z])\/([1-7])\/([\/\w \.-]*)*\/?$",    
>>>>        "case-sensitive": true
>>>>     }
>>>> 
>>>> Example 2: assuming regexp type is variable
>>>> 
>>>>     { 
>>>>        "regex": "/^(https:\/\/video\.example\.com)\/([a-z])\/([1-7])\/([\/\w \.-]*)*\/?$",    
>>>>        "case-sensitive": true
>>>>        "regrex-type": "pcre"
>>>>     }
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ori
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Ori Finkelman
>>>> Qwilt | Work: +972-72-2221647 | Mobile: +972-52-3832189 | orif@qwilt.com
>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CDNi mailing list
>>>> CDNi@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ori Finkelman
>> Qwilt | Work: +972-72-2221647 | Mobile: +972-52-3832189 | orif@qwilt.com
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ori Finkelman
> Qwilt | Work: +972-72-2221647 | Mobile: +972-52-3832189 | orif@qwilt.com