>From: Ian Cooper [mailto:icooper@equinix.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:49 PM
>WREC
>====
>* Proxy/surrogate discovery protocol for user agents
> - initial intent is probably for "user agents" to mean browsers;
> - should also consider some aspects of wider proxy/surrogate discovery
>or registration that will probably be interesting to CDNP and extproxy
>(e.g. proxies/surrogates being able to discover other proxies or
surrogates)
> - obviously of interest to the folks doing the extensible proxy work
>
>* Cache coherence/invalidation protocol
> - including delta encoding and preloading within the administrative
>control of the data owner
> - will probably touch on expiry semantics in passing
> - will be of interest to the CDNP folks too
>
List looks reasonable.
CDNP BOF -> WG?
>====
>* Distribution of data from origin servers outside of the administrative
>control of the data owner
>
>(I'd specifically exclude the scenario where the distribution occurs within
>a single administrative domain... do we really need to standardize that?)
I second the motion to limit scope to INTER-CDN interactions which implies
inter administrative domains. The need to standardize within a CDN is IMHO
an
important step to take in the future (outside the scope of CDNP), as it
would allow
CDNs to be built from standard components. Possibly the work undertaken in
WREC
with repect to discovery and cache coherency would prove usefull in seeding
this.
>
>* Routing request to closest site (service) with the requested data
> - should probably consider caching proxies in the model
> - (obviously has some aspects of competitive advantage as was discussed
>from the WREC KP draft in Pittsburgh)
> - definition of the "closest" site (see WREC KP draft on known failings
>of ICP in heterogeneous network)
> - may overlap with, or provide us with, (or show us that it's
>unnecessary to have) some replacement for ICP in the caching world
>
>
>Billing (and more)
>==================
>There seems to be a case for billing/accounting to be covered in all three
>of WREC, CDNP and extensible proxies. I believe that the extproxy folks
>have commented that this may be appropriate work for another group (AAA?),
>and it definitely seems that it's beyond any one of those being discussed
here.
>
Actually, there is precedence in the IETF for WGs to provide their own AAA
extensions. mobileip <draft-hiller-cdma2000-aaa-02.txt> and ipv6
<draft-perkins-aaav6-00.txt> are examples.
>If we therefore open the scope to the wider issue of authentication and
>authorization I guess we can add
>
>* Exchange format for log summaries (essentially some form of accounting
>records; this is the problem identified in the WREC known problems
document)
>
>* User session management
>
>* Authentication models for multi-sited services/TLS interaction
Authentication is likely needed for surrogates in CDNP.
Extensible Proxies BOF --> WG?
==================
Here's are strawman on activities within Extensible Proxies
* Trigger rule base syntax & semantics
* Excution run time model and security constraints
* Proxylet distribution protocol
* ICAP remote call out protocol standardization
It makes sense to me to have 3 WGs attacking this space in parallel focused
charters that
can be complete signifiant deliverables in 12-18 months and then address the
issues of
rechartering to take on deferred work.
Gary
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:29 MST