> >yes, because there is a need to have standardized interfaces between
> >content providers and content-distribution networks acting on
> >behalf of the content providers. there is also a need for a standardized
> >and efficient interface between content users and content
> >distribution networks - the stuff we are using now is quite crude.
>
> Looks like I was misunderstood, since I meant that part to be where a
> content provider wanted to do distribution across systems that they owned
> rather than CDNs. Is that something that we should be looking at?
from a protocol perspective, I don't think it matters whether the CDN
is owned by the content-provider or whether it is owned by a separate
party. we still need to define the interaction between the two, so
that there are standard components. then it's a business decision
on the content-provider's part as to whether to build the CDN itself
(and whether to do so out of standard components or to roll its own),
or pay someone else to do that function.
(note that accounting/billing support are useful even when
the content and the CDN are owned by the same party)
Keith
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:29 MST