Subject: [CDNi] cdni-logging - proposed text for applicability of "cdni_http_request_v1" Record-Type

From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:31:30 +0000

Folks,

(as a cdni-logging editor)

Below is the proposed text to discuss applicability of the "cdni_http_request_v1" Record-Type to HTTP/1.0. HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2.0 and HTTPS, in line with the approach described in London by Iuniana.
Please let us know if you have any comments/suggestions on that.

Cheers

Francois

"
3.4.1.  HTTP Request Logging Record

   This section defines the CDNI Logging Record of Record-Type
   "cdni_http_request_v1".  It is applicable to content delivery
   performed by the dCDN using HTTP/1.0([RFC1945]), HTTP/1.1([RFC2616])
   or HTTPS ([RFC2818]).  We observe that, in case of HTTPS delivery,
   there may be value in logging additional information specific to the
   operation of HTTP over TLS and we note that this is outside the scope
   of the present document and may be addressed in a future document
   defining another CDNI Logging Record or another version of the HTTP
   Request Logging Record.

   The "cdni_http_request_v1" Record-Type is also expected to be
   applicable to HTTP/2.0 ([I-D.ietf-httpbis-http2]) which is still
   under development at the time of writing the present document, since
   a fundamental design tenet of HTTP/2.0 is to preserve the HTTP/1.1
   semantics.  We observe that, in case of HTTP/2.0 delivery, there may
   be value in logging additional information specific to the additional
   functionality of HTTP/2.0 and we note that this is outside the scope
   of the present document and may be addressed in a future document
   defining another CDNI Logging Record or another version of the HTTP
   Request Logging Record.

   The "cdni_http_request_v1" Record-Type contains the following CDNI
   Logging Fields, listed by their field name:
  …
"

---

From: Kevin J Ma <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:54:48 -0400

Hi Francois,

  The text looks good to me.
  One nit: I would change the two cases of "in case of" -> "in the case of".

thanx.

--  Kevin J. Ma

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CDNi [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Francois Le
> Faucheur (flefauch)
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 1:32 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [CDNi] cdni-logging - proposed text for applicability of
> "cdni_http_request_v1" Record-Type
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Below is the proposed text to discuss applicability of the
> "cdni_http_request_v1" Record-Type to HTTP/1.0. HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2.0 and
> HTTPS, in line with the approach described in London by Iuniana.
>   ...
> _______________________________________________
> CDNi mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni

---

From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 14:44:52 +0000

>  The text looks good to me.

Great.

>  One nit: I would change the two cases of "in case of" -> "in the case of”.

Fixed.

Thanks

---

From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:52:43 +0000

Folks,

We received a suggestion to include examples of additional things that might be nice to log for HTTP/2.0 in future CDNI Logging Records, so we’d tweaked the HTTP/2.0 paragraph into:
"

   The "cdni_http_request_v1" Record-Type is also expected to be
   applicable to HTTP/2.0 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-http2] (which is still under
   development at the time of writing the present document) since a
   fundamental design tenet of HTTP/2.0 is to preserve the HTTP/1.1
   semantics.  We observe that, in the case of HTTP/2.0 delivery, there
   may be value in logging additional information specific to the
   additional functionality of HTTP/2.0 (e.g. information related to
   connection identification, to stream identification, to stream
   priority and to flow control).  We note that such additional
   information is outside the scope of the present document and may be
   addressed in a future document defining another CDNI Logging Record
   or another version of the HTTP Request Logging Record.

“
Let us know if you have comments.

Cheers

Francois

On 14 Mar 2014, at 07:54, Kevin J Ma <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hi Francois,

thanx.

--  Kevin J. Ma

-----Original Message-----
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

Folks,

Cheers

Francois

"

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>