Subject: [CDNi] Notes from yesterday's footprint/capabilities phone call

From: Jan Seedorf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:10:48 +0000

Dear all,

Please find my notes from yesterday's footprint/capabilities call below. I think we had a good discussion and made some progress regarding how footprint and capabilities should be tied together, "default/implied" values for footprint or capabilities, and that advertising a delta is probably better than advertising the whole state each time.

I will set up a doodle in the next days so that we can hopefully have a side meeting in Orlando with the goal of concluding the design team in the near future and giving out conclusions back to the WG so that actual protocol proposals (adhering to those conclusions) can start being discussed.

 - Jan

Notes from CDNI  Footprint/Capabilities Phone Call 20130226
**********************************************
-- Jon: don't see why different types of footprint are exclusive (why can't we allow for both in the sense of a flexible protocol)
-- Scott: what about footprint and capabilities being tied together? Kevin: we need to say how they are tied together; we need to start the discussion on how to advertise how footprint and capabilities correlate with each other
-- Jan: do we want to advertise full state or only delta/change with respect to already advertised state? Kevin: do not like exclusions, rather would re-advertise with inclusions
-- Jon: I don't think that failures that violate an SLA would be communicated via a protocol
-- agreement that there can be an implied/default footprint but also an explicit footprint
-- Kevin: idea of implicit capabilities may be dangerous
-- Jon: let's aim for a protocol that is simple for most use cases (but allows to handle the more complex ones)
-- Jon: difference between "mandatory to support" and "mandatory to use" for capabilities
-- possibility to have tags that subsume a certain combination of footprint/capabilities, so that referencing to such a tag/handle can simplify things
-- agreement that metadata geo-location objects/definitions need to be aligned with footprint/capabilities advertisement, e.g. footprint/capabilities advertisement could point to metadata descriptors
-- footprint and capabilities should be correlated, a handler for geographic locations can simplify things, handler can be a pointer to a metadata descriptor
**********************************************

============================================================
Jan Seedorf
Senior Researcher
NEC Europe Ltd., NEC Laboratories Europe, Network Division     
Kurfuerstenanlage 36, D-69115 Heidelberg
Tel.     +49 (0)6221 4342-221
Fax:     +49 (0)6221 4342-155
e-mail:  [email-masked]
============================================================
NEC Europe Ltd, Registered Office: Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End  Road, London, HA4 6QE, GB, Registered in England 2832014