Subject: RE: Candidate re-charter/new WG

From: Gary Tomlinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:05:30 -0800

Agreed.  We've been struggling to come up with a better term.  CDN Peering
doesn't imply settlement free, in fact, the norm is quite the opposite.
This could make for a good discussion in the BoF.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 9:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Candidate re-charter/new WG

> I don't see mirrors being something CDNP is likely to work on.  CDNP is
> focused on the peering (interconnection) of CDNs, 

I am a little uneasy with our use of the term "peering", because I
think we run the risk of implying something about settlements we don't
mean.  There is a big chunk of the BGP crowd that still thinks of
peering as meaning "traffic exchange without settlement".  I think we
want to talk about CDN traffic exchange and interworking, but I don't
think we want to imply "without settlement".

I don't want to start a big "rethink the name" effort, but I think it
may be something that we should cover early in the BOF, just to
eliminate any peering vs. transit discussions.

			regards,
				Ted