--On Wednesday, December 12, 2001 21:38 -0500 Mark Day <markday@cisco.com>
wrote:
>> 11) The OPES, Webi, and CDI groups have enough overlapping issues that it
>> might be good to have a coordination working group like IMPP is for the
>> instant messaging space.
>
> It's always nice when someone thinks that IMPP is a *good* example of
> something. Nevertheless I feel obliged to point out that IMPP wasn't
> designed as a coordination group, and probably wouldn't have been
> chartered as such. IMPP has its own deliverables, which it is duly
> attempting to deliver. It just inherited the coordinating-group role
> when the other instant-messaging groups split off from IMPP and each
> other.
Thanks for the clarification Mark.
This is probably a useful time to remind folks of the text produced last
year outlining the scope of the proposed groups for the IESG.
>>> Michael Condry
>>> Ian Cooper
>>> Mark Day
>>> Mark Nottingham
>>> Hilarie Orman
>>>
>>>
>>> There are currently multiple proposals for IETF Applications Area
>>> working groups related to Web transport/content distribution;
>>> WREC/WEBI, OPES and CDNP. This discussion proposes deliniations between
>>> the groups, in order to clarify their roles.
>>>
>>> Historically, WREC focused on caching and replication. WEBI is proposed
>>> to replace WREC and slightly broaden its scope to include issues of
>>> general import to intermediaries. WEBI work items will be distinguished
>>> by being generic, in that they are not specific to one application
>>> domain (such as content peering or value-added proxies). For example,
>>> invalidation mechanisms and intermediate discovery protocols are of
>>> interest in multiple applications. Note that if requirements for a
>>> particular application can not be met by a general mechanism, it may be
>>> appropriate to define an application-specific mechanism as well. WEBI
>>> might produce other groups as workload requires.
>>>
>>> The Open Proxy Services architecture (OPES) allows for services to be
>>> constructed "inside the network", allowing both the overlay of
>>> value-added services and the introduction of a processing model in
>>> intermediaries. OPES work items will be distinguished in that they
>>> involve definition and/or support of value-added services on
>>> intermediaries. For example, this may include a means of vectoring
>>> messages to "callout servers" and configuration and managment of
>>> services, but should exclude general content routing mechanisms.
>>>
>>> Content Distribution Network Peering (CDNP) defines a model and
>>> mechanisms for the interconnection and cooperation of networks for
>>> content-related tasks: direction (directing requests for content),
>>> distribution (moving content out to surrogates) and accounting (tracking
>>> the delivery of content from surrogates). A single network may have its
>>> own mechanisms for these tasks, and WEBI may define or standardize
>>> elements of those mechanisms. CDNP focuses on the interactions required
>>> for direction, distribution, and accounting between two or more networks
>>> with different administrations, where the networks are potentially using
>>> different local mechanisms for
>>>
>>> Within WREC/WEBI, OPES and CDNP are largely orthogonal. The groups
>>> should cooperate in order to avoid conflicting specifications.
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:23:00 MST