Subject: RE: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)

From: "Joseph Hui" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:31:37 -0700

>> The IETF can defer to other standards bodies if it so chooses, but I
believe
>> the Application Area will eventually become irrelevent in the web
arena and
>> the W3C will take over all of that protocol work. (A current example:
where
>> do we do cache invalidation protocol work and how scalable is the
solution?)>>
>>  
>
> See draft-day-cdnp-model-06.txt for some of the work going on; though
>the CDNI work has not yet resulted in a working group, Mark Day et al
> certainly seem to be doing their work with a view to the IETF process
> (open publication of documents and input from as broad a community as>
> possible).  
>
>			regards,
>				Ted Hardie

Lee,

See draft-danli-wrec-wcip-01.txt also.  (Wrec has since graduated into
webi.)
The WCIP protocol is meant to be scalable by design.

Regards,

Joe Hui
Research Engineer
Digital Island

---

From: "Lee Rafalow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:21:47 -0400

My point about IETF Application Area scope is being misinterpreted in a
couple of different ways.

1.  I know about the work going on in the other content-related BOFs/WGs.
There is also an Akamai/Oracle proposal in W3C to do a different cache
invalidation protocol.   I'm sure Mark can explain this, but I'm not yet
convinced.  (discussion for a different list and, perhaps, for the IESG and
W3C coordinators)

2.  I also know the question of IETF scope wrt web application protocols and
the future of OPES are not the same question.  But they are not orthogonal
questions either.

My point was simply that if the IETF does not take on the significant
protocol issues facing the distribution of web services (in this case to the
edge servers), the work will be done elsewhere.  This should be a conscious
choice and the OPES charter decision is clearly related to that larger
decision.  I liked the Hume quote in Adam's message trailer: "It is seldom
that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."  With much less import, the
same can be said for technical authority.  I'm not trying to encourage any
turf battles; I'm just trying to point out that the IETF expertise in
scalable networking solutions is valued but could be eroded in practice by
what I believe would be an inappropriately rigid application of principles.

My day job beckons.

Lee M. Rafalow
Voice: 1-919-254-4455, Fax: 1-919-254-6243
IBM Internet Technology Management
IBM Corporation
P.O. Box 12195, BRQA/502
RTP, NC 27709 USA
Alternate email: [email-masked]
Personal email: [email-masked]

---

From: "Scott Brim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:23:55 -0400

> what I believe would be an inappropriately rigid application of principles.

Note parallels in the discussion we had over what should be in-scope for
the Sub-IP Area. 

> The arguments that bring us to accept sub-IP work in the IETF are 
> principally that
> · The work depends on IP expertise, which is here,
> · That it is critical to the development of the IP infrastructure, and
> · That it directly or indirectly affects operations or routing at the IP layer.

The bullet we haven't reached consensus on is #2.