Subject: Re: [CDNi] Progressing the CDNI Problem Statement

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 14:45:02 +0100

Kent,

On 27 Jul 2011, at 20:40, Kent Leung (kleung) wrote:

> Here are my comments on ver-02:

I have updated my working copy but I'll hold off publishing it until the WG adoption poll has concluded.

> 1. Spec consistency.  "end users" should be "End Users" in document
> (e.g. Abstract, Intro sections)

Done.

> 2. Spec consistency. "CDN Interconnection" vs "CDN Interconnect".
> Currently used interchangebly.

Done - I went with "CDN Interconnection".

> 3. Sect 1 Intro: Typos for Section 6 and Section 7 in the last sentence

Done.

> 4. Spec consistency. "Pre-Position" to "Pre-position"

Done - I went with "Pre-position".

> 5. Sect 1.1 Terminology: typo "indepedent" to "independent"

Done.

> 6. In context of CDNI ... "CDN acquires distribution metadata for
> content".  Technically, this is "CDNI Metadata" for content.  

Changed to "CDNI Metdata".

> 7. "CSP's Service" to "CSP's service"

Done.

> 8. "Dedicated content applications" to "dedicated content applications"

Done.

> 9. "connectivity/services to Users" to "connectivity/services to End
> User"

Done.

> 10. Extra space in "a Logging System and a CDN control system ."

Done.

> 11. Should the term "Authoritative CDN" (reference later in sect 3.2) be
> included in section? I think it's valuable to have term that can be used
> by CDNI specs.

I've added:

Authoritative CDN: A CDN which has a direct relationship with a CSP for the distribution & delivery of that CSP's content.

> 12. Should the term "Cascaded CDNs" be included?

IMO no as the Problem Statement doesn't use the term cascaded CDNs.

> 13. "Iterative" and "Recursive" Request Routing should be included?  In
> general, all terms relevant to CDNI should be located in one spec.

I believe we agreed (after you sent your comments) that the best place for these definitions is in the Framework draft.

> 13. "user agent" to "User Agent"

Done.

> 14. Sect 3 CDNI Model Figure: CDNI protocol -> CDNI interface.  An
> interface may have served by multiple protocols.

Done.

> 15. Typo "CDNI Metatdata" to "CDNI Metadata"

Done.

> 16. Missing Control to Surrogate interface, marked as out of scope
> (e.g., content removal)

See separate (offline) discussion where we agreed to make the interfaces to the "Distribution" function rather than directly to the Surrogate.

> 17. Need Request Interface from dCDN Surrogate to uCDN Req-Routing (e.g.
> cache miss on dCDN)?

Done.

> 18. Sect 3.1 Candidate CDNI: "protocol" to "interface"

Done.

> 19. Typo "Pre-postioned"

Done.

> 20. Sect 3.2 Non-Goals: Editorial nit, should be "Internal CDN Protocols
> (i.e. protocols within one CDN)"

Done.

> 21. Sects 4.3-4.6: "API" to "Interface"

Done.

> 22. Sect 4.4 CDNI Metadata: "element of the Metadata protocol" to
> "element of the CDNI Metadata protocol"

Done.

> 23. Sect 4.6 CDNI Control: "Allow the downstream CDN to communicate
> information about its delivery capabilities, resources and policies".
> Is this part of Request Routing Interface?  These are parameters that
> are needed by Request Routing System.

I added 'static' as I believe that was the intent but exactly where different functions/parameters are placed is still TBD.

The Problem Statement does already contain the following sentence:

        Note that the actual grouping of functionalities under these four
        interfaces is considered tentative at this stage and may be changed
        after further study (e.g. some subset of functionality be moved from
        one interface into another).

> 24. Sect 6.3 Gap Analysis: Remove or update "<TODO>" bullet.

I have left this in for now. The TODO relates to inserting a sentence summarising the ITU work and I am not familiar with that work, but hopefully someone on the list is and can provide some text. If no text is forthcoming we can remove it at a later date.

Ben