[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-cdni-f...] [Diff1] [Diff2] [IPR]

PROPOSED STANDARD

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        J. Seedorf
Request for Comments: 8008     HFT Stuttgart - Univ. of Applied Sciences
Category: Standards Track                                    J. Peterson
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                  Neustar
                                                              S. Previdi
                                                                   Cisco
                                                      R. van Brandenburg
                                                                     TNO
                                                                   K. Ma
                                                                Ericsson
                                                           December 2016


    Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Request Routing:
                  Footprint and Capabilities Semantics

Abstract

   This document captures the semantics of the "Footprint and
   Capabilities Advertisement" part of the Content Delivery Network
   Interconnection (CDNI) Request Routing interface, i.e., the desired
   meaning of "Footprint" and "Capabilities" in the CDNI context and
   what the "Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface (FCI)"
   offers within CDNI.  The document also provides guidelines for the
   CDNI FCI protocol.  It further defines a Base Advertisement Object,
   the necessary registries for capabilities and footprints, and
   guidelines on how these registries can be extended in the future.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8008.










Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 1]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.





































Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 2]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction and Scope ..........................................4
      1.1. Terminology ................................................5
   2. Design Decisions for Footprint and Capabilities .................6
      2.1. Advertising Limited Coverage ...............................6
      2.2. Capabilities and Dynamic Data ..............................7
      2.3. Advertisement versus Queries ...............................8
      2.4. Avoiding or Handling "Cheating" dCDNs ......................8
   3. Focusing on Capabilities with Footprint Restrictions ............9
   4. Footprint and Capabilities Extension ............................9
   5. Capability Advertisement Object ................................11
      5.1. Base Advertisement Object .................................12
      5.2. Encoding ..................................................12
      5.3. Delivery Protocol Capability Object .......................13
           5.3.1. Delivery Protocol Capability Object Serialization ..13
      5.4. Acquisition Protocol Capability Object ....................14
           5.4.1. Acquisition Protocol Capability Object
                  Serialization ......................................14
      5.5. Redirection Mode Capability Object ........................15
           5.5.1. Redirection Mode Capability Object Serialization ...15
      5.6. CDNI Logging Capability Object ............................16
           5.6.1. CDNI Logging Capability Object Serialization .......17
      5.7. CDNI Metadata Capability Object ...........................18
           5.7.1. CDNI Metadata Capability Object Serialization ......19
   6. IANA Considerations ............................................20
      6.1. CDNI Payload Types ........................................20
           6.1.1. CDNI FCI DeliveryProtocol Payload Type .............20
           6.1.2. CDNI FCI AcquisitionProtocol Payload Type ..........20
           6.1.3. CDNI FCI RedirectionMode Payload Type ..............20
           6.1.4. CDNI FCI Logging Payload Type ......................21
           6.1.5. CDNI FCI Metadata Payload Type .....................21
      6.2. "CDNI Capabilities Redirection Modes" Registry ............21
   7. Security Considerations ........................................22
   8. References .....................................................23
      8.1. Normative References ......................................23
      8.2. Informative References ....................................24
   Appendix A. Main Use Case to Consider .............................25
   Appendix B. Semantics for Footprint Advertisement .................25
   Appendix C. Semantics for Capabilities Advertisement ..............27
   Acknowledgments ...................................................30
   Authors' Addresses ................................................30









Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 3]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


1.  Introduction and Scope

   The CDNI working group is working on a set of protocols to enable the
   interconnection of multiple CDNs.  These CDNI protocols can serve
   multiple purposes, as discussed in [RFC6770] -- for instance, to
   extend the reach of a given CDN to areas in the network that are not
   covered by that particular CDN.

   The goal of this document is to achieve a clear understanding about
   the semantics associated with the CDNI Request Routing Footprint &
   Capabilities Advertisement interface (from now on referred to as
   the FCI) [RFC7336], in particular the type of information a
   downstream CDN (dCDN) "advertises" regarding its footprint and
   capabilities.  To narrow down undecided aspects of these semantics,
   this document tries to establish a common understanding of what the
   FCI needs to offer and accomplish in the context of CDNI.

   Deciding on specific protocols to use for the FCI is explicitly
   outside the scope of this document.  However, we provide guidelines
   for such FCI protocols.

   We make the following general assumptions in this document:

   o  The CDNs participating in the CDN interconnection have already
      performed a bootstrap process, i.e., they have connected to each
      other, either directly or indirectly, and can exchange information
      amongst each other.

   o  The upstream CDN (uCDN) receives footprint advertisements and/or
      capability advertisements from a set of dCDNs.  Footprint
      advertisements and capability advertisements need not use the same
      underlying protocol.

   o  The uCDN receives the initial Request Routing message from the
      endpoint requesting the resource.

   The CDNI problem statement [RFC6707] describes the Request Routing
   interface as "[enabling] a Request Routing function in an Upstream
   CDN to query a Request Routing function in a Downstream CDN to
   determine if the Downstream CDN is able (and willing) to accept the
   delegated Content Request."  In addition, [RFC6707] says "the CDNI
   Request Routing interface is also expected to enable a Downstream CDN
   to provide to the Upstream CDN (static or dynamic) information (e.g.,
   resources, footprint, load) to facilitate selection of the Downstream
   CDN by the Upstream CDN Request Routing system when processing
   subsequent Content Requests from User Agents."  It thus considers
   "resources" and "load" as capabilities to be advertised by the dCDN.




Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 4]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   The range of different footprint definitions and possible
   capabilities is very broad.  Attempting to define a comprehensive
   advertisement solution quickly becomes intractable.  The CDNI
   requirements document [RFC7337] lists the specific requirements for
   the CDNI FCI in order to disambiguate footprints and capabilities
   with respect to CDNI.  This document defines a common understanding
   of what the terms "footprint" and "capabilities" mean in the context
   of CDNI and details the semantics of the footprint advertisement
   mechanism and the capability advertisement mechanism.

1.1.  Terminology

   This document reuses the terminology defined in [RFC6707].

   Additionally, the following terms are used throughout this document
   and are defined as follows:

   o  Footprint: a description of a CDN's coverage area, i.e., the area
      from which client requests may originate for content and to which
      the CDN is willing to deliver content.  Note: There are many ways
      to describe a footprint -- for example, by address range (e.g.,
      IPv4 CIDR or IPv6 CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing), network
      ID (e.g., Autonomous System Number (ASN)), nation boundaries
      (e.g., country code), or GPS coordinates.  This document does not
      define or endorse the quality or suitability of any particular
      footprint description method; rather, it only defines a method for
      transporting known footprint descriptions in Footprint and
      Capabilities Advertisement messages.

   o  Capability: a feature of a dCDN upon whose support a uCDN relies
      when making delegation decisions.  Support for a given feature can
      change over time and can be restricted to a limited portion of a
      dCDN's footprint.  Note: There are many possible dCDN features
      that could be of interest to a uCDN.  This document does not
      presume to define them all; rather, it describes a scheme for
      defining new capabilities and how to transport them in Footprint
      and Capabilities Advertisement messages.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].










Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 5]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


2.  Design Decisions for Footprint and Capabilities

   A large part of the difficulty in discussing the FCI lies in
   understanding what exactly is meant when trying to define a footprint
   in terms of "coverage" or "reachability".  While the operators of
   CDNs pick strategic locations to situate Surrogates, a Surrogate with
   a public IPv4 address is reachable by any endpoint on the Internet,
   unless some policy enforcement precludes the use of the Surrogate.

   Some CDNs aspire to cover the entire world; we refer to these as
   global CDNs.  The footprint advertised by such a CDN in the CDNI
   environment would, from a coverage or reachability perspective,
   presumably cover all prefixes.  Potentially more interesting for CDNI
   use cases, however, are CDNs that claim a more limited coverage area
   but seek to interconnect with other CDNs in order to create a single
   CDN fabric that shares resources.

   Furthermore, not all capabilities need to be footprint-restricted.
   Depending upon the use case, the optimal semantics of "footprints
   with capability attributes" vs. "capabilities with footprint
   restrictions" are not clear.

   The key to understanding the semantics of footprint advertisements
   and capability advertisements lies in understanding why a dCDN would
   advertise a limited coverage area and how a uCDN would use such
   advertisements to decide among one of several dCDNs.  The following
   section will discuss some of the trade-offs and design decisions that
   need to be made for the CDNI FCI.

2.1.  Advertising Limited Coverage

   The basic use case that would motivate a dCDN to advertise limited
   coverage is that the CDN was built to cover only a particular portion
   of the Internet.  For example, an ISP could purpose-build a CDN to
   serve only their own customers by situating Surrogates in close
   topological proximity to high concentrations of their subscribers.
   The ISP knows the prefixes it has allocated to end users and thus can
   easily construct a list of prefixes that its Surrogates were
   positioned to serve.

   When such a purpose-built CDN interconnects with other CDNs and
   advertises its footprint to a uCDN, however, the original intended
   coverage of the CDN might not represent its actual value to the
   interconnection of CDNs.  Consider an ISP-A and ISP-B that both field
   their own CDNs, which they interconnect via CDNI.  A given user E,
   who is a customer of ISP-B, might happen to be topologically closer
   to a Surrogate fielded by ISP-A, if E happens to live in a region
   where ISP-B has few customers and ISP-A has many.  In this case, is



Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 6]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   it ISP-A's CDN that "covers" E?  If ISP-B's CDN has a failure
   condition, is it up to the uCDN to understand that ISP-A's Surrogates
   are potentially available as backups, and if so, how does ISP-A
   advertise itself as a "standby" for E?  What about the case where
   CDNs advertising to the same uCDN express overlapping coverage (for
   example, mixing global and limited CDNs)?

   The answers to these questions greatly depend on how much information
   the uCDN wants to use to select a dCDN.  If a uCDN has three dCDNs to
   choose from that "cover" the IP address of user E, obviously the uCDN
   might be interested in knowing how optimal the coverage is from each
   of the dCDNs.  Coverage need not be binary (i.e., either provided or
   not provided); dCDNs could advertise a coverage "score", for example,
   and provided that they all reported scores fairly on the same scale,
   uCDNs could use that information to make their topological optimality
   decision.  Alternately, dCDNs could advertise the IP addresses of
   their Surrogates rather than prefix "coverage" and let the uCDN
   decide for itself (based on its own topological intelligence) which
   dCDN has better resources to serve a given user.

   In summary, the semantics of advertising a footprint depend on
   whether (1) such qualitative metrics for expressing a footprint (such
   as the coverage "score" mentioned above) are included as part of the
   CDNI FCI or (2) the focus is just on a "binary" footprint.

2.2.  Capabilities and Dynamic Data

   In cases where the apparent footprints of dCDNs overlap, uCDNs might
   also want to rely on other factors to evaluate the respective merits
   of dCDNs.  These include facts related to the Surrogates themselves,
   the network where the Surrogate is deployed, the nature of the
   resource sought, and the administrative policies of the respective
   networks.

   In the absence of network-layer impediments to reaching Surrogates,
   the choice to limit coverage is, by necessity, an administrative
   policy.  Much policy needs to be agreed upon before CDNs can
   interconnect, including questions of membership, compensation,
   volumes, and so on.  A uCDN certainly will factor these sorts of
   considerations into its decision to select a dCDN, but there is
   probably little need for dCDNs to actually advertise them through an
   interface -- they will be settled out-of-band as a precondition for
   interconnection.

   Other facts about the dCDN would be expressed through the interface
   to the uCDN.  Some capabilities of a dCDN are static, and some are
   highly dynamic.  Expressing the total storage built into its
   Surrogates, for example, changes relatively rarely, whereas the



Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 7]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   amount of storage in use at any given moment is highly volatile.
   Network bandwidth similarly could be expressed either as total
   bandwidth available to a Surrogate or based on the current state of
   the network.  A Surrogate can at one moment lack a particular
   resource in storage but have it the next.

   The semantics of the capabilities interface will depend on how much
   of the dCDN state needs to be pushed to the uCDN and, qualitatively,
   how often that information needs to be updated.

2.3.  Advertisement versus Queries

   In a CDNI environment, each dCDN shares some of its state with the
   uCDN.  The uCDN uses this information to build a unified picture of
   all of the dCDNs available to it.  In architectures that share
   detailed capability information, the uCDN could perform the entire
   Request Routing operation down to selecting a particular Surrogate in
   the dCDN.  However, when the uCDN needs to deal with many potential
   dCDNs, this approach does not scale, especially for dCDNs with
   thousands or tens of thousands of Surrogates; the volume of updates
   to the footprint and the capability information becomes onerous.

   Were the volume of FCI updates from dCDNs to exceed the volume of
   requests to the uCDN, it might make more sense for the uCDN to query
   dCDNs upon receiving requests (as is the case in the recursive
   redirection mode described in [RFC7336]), instead of receiving
   advertisements and tracking the state of dCDNs.  The advantage of
   querying dCDNs would be that much of the dynamic data that dCDNs
   cannot share with the uCDN would now be factored into the uCDN's
   decision. dCDNs need not replicate any state to the uCDN -- uCDNs
   could effectively operate in a stateless mode.

   The semantics of both footprint advertisements and capability
   advertisements depend on the service model here: are there cases
   where a synchronous query/response model would work better for the
   uCDN decision than a state replication model?

2.4.  Avoiding or Handling "Cheating" dCDNs

   In a situation where more than one dCDN is willing to serve a given
   end user request, it might be attractive for a dCDN to "cheat" in the
   sense that the dCDN provides inaccurate information to the uCDN in
   order to convince the uCDN to select it over "competing" dCDNs.  It
   could therefore be desirable to take away the incentive for dCDNs to
   cheat (in information advertised) as much as possible.  One option is
   to make the information the dCDN advertises somehow verifiable for
   the uCDN.  On the other hand, a "cheating" dCDN might be avoided or




Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 8]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   handled by the fact that there will be strong contractual agreements
   between a uCDN and a dCDN, so that a dCDN would risk severe penalties
   or legal consequences when caught cheating.

   Overall, the information a dCDN advertises (in the long run) needs to
   be somehow qualitatively verifiable by the uCDN, though possibly
   through non-real-time out-of-band audits.  It is probably an overly
   strict requirement to mandate that such verification be possible
   "immediately", i.e., during the Request Routing process itself.  If
   the uCDN can detect a cheating dCDN at a later stage, it might
   suffice for the uCDN to "de-incentivize" cheating because it would
   negatively affect the long-term business relationship with a
   particular dCDN.

3.  Focusing on Capabilities with Footprint Restrictions

   Given the design considerations listed in the previous section, it
   seems reasonable to assume that in most cases it is the uCDN that
   makes the decision to select a certain dCDN for Request Routing based
   on information the uCDN has received from this particular dCDN.  It
   can be assumed that cheating dCDNs will be dealt with via means
   outside the scope of CDNI and that the information advertised between
   CDNs is accurate.  In addition, excluding the use of qualitative
   information (e.g., Surrogate proximity, delivery latency, Surrogate
   load) to predict the quality of delivery would further simplify the
   use case, allowing it to better focus on the basic functionality of
   the FCI.

   Furthermore, understanding that in most cases contractual agreements
   will define the basic coverage used in delegation decisions, the
   primary focus of the FCI is on providing updates to the basic
   capabilities and coverage by the dCDNs.  As such, the FCI has chosen
   the semantics of "capabilities with footprint restrictions".

4.  Footprint and Capabilities Extension

   Other optional "coverage/reachability" footprint types or "resource"
   footprint types may be defined by future specifications.  To
   facilitate this, a clear process for specifying optional footprint
   types in an IANA registry is specified in the "CDNI Metadata
   Footprint Types" registry (defined in the CDNI Metadata interface
   document [RFC8006]).









Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 9]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   This document also registers CDNI Payload Types [RFC7736] for the
   initial capability types (see Section 6):

   o  Delivery Protocol (for delivering content to the end user)

   o  Acquisition Protocol (for acquiring content from the uCDN or
      origin server)

   o  Redirection Mode (e.g., DNS redirection vs. HTTP redirection as
      discussed in [RFC7336])

   o  CDNI Logging (i.e., supported CDNI Logging fields)

   o  CDNI Metadata (i.e., supported GenericMetadata types)

   Each Payload Type is prefaced with "FCI.".  Updates to capability
   objects MUST indicate the version of the capability object in a newly
   registered Payload Type, e.g., by appending ".v2".  Each capability
   type MAY have a list of valid values.  Future specifications that
   define a given capability MUST define any necessary registries (and
   the rules for adding new entries to the registry) for the values
   advertised for a given capability type.

   The "CDNI Logging record-types" registry [RFC7937] defines all known
   record-types, including "mandatory-to-implement" record-types.
   Advertising support for mandatory-to-implement record-types would be
   redundant.  CDNs SHOULD NOT advertise support for
   mandatory-to-implement record-types.

   The "CDNI Logging Field Names" registry [RFC7937] defines all known
   CDNI Logging fields.  CDNI Logging fields may be reused by different
   record-types and be mandatory-to-implement in some record-types, but
   they may be optional in other record-types.  CDNs MUST advertise
   support for optional CDNI Logging fields within the context of a
   specific record-type.  For a given record-type, CDNs SHOULD NOT
   advertise support for mandatory-to-implement CDNI Logging fields.
   The following CDNI Logging fields are defined as optional for the
   "cdni_http_request_v1" record-type [RFC7937]:

   o  s-ccid

   o  s-sid

   [RFC8006] requires that CDNs be able to parse all the defined
   metadata objects but does not require dCDNs to support enforcement of
   non-structural GenericMetadata objects.  Advertising support for
   "mandatory-to-enforce" GenericMetadata types MUST be provided.
   Advertising support for non-mandatory-to-enforce GenericMetadata



Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 10]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   types SHOULD be provided.  Advertisement of non-mandatory-to-enforce
   GenericMetadata MAY be necessary, e.g., to signal temporary outages
   and subsequent recovery.  It is expected that structural metadata
   will be supported at all times.

   The notion of optional footprint types and capability types implies
   that certain implementations might not support all kinds of
   footprints and capabilities.  Therefore, any FCI solution protocol
   MUST define how the support for optional footprint types and
   capability types will be negotiated between a uCDN and a dCDN that
   use the particular FCI protocol.  In particular, any FCI solution
   protocol MUST specify how to handle failure cases or non-supported
   footprint or capability types.

   In general, a uCDN MAY ignore capabilities or footprint types it does
   not understand; in this case, it only selects a suitable dCDN based
   on the types of capabilities and footprints it understands.
   Similarly, if a dCDN does not use an optional capability or footprint
   that is, however, supported by a uCDN, this causes no problem for FCI
   functionality because the uCDN decides on the remaining
   capabilities/footprint information that is being conveyed by
   the dCDN.

5.  Capability Advertisement Object

   To support extensibility, the FCI defines a generic base object
   (similar to the CDNI Metadata interface GenericMetadata object)
   [RFC8006] to facilitate a uniform set of mandatory parsing
   requirements for all future FCI objects.

   Future object definitions (e.g., regarding the CDNI Metadata or CDNI
   Logging interfaces) will build off the base object defined here but
   will be specified in separate documents.

   Note: In the following sections, the term "mandatory-to-specify" is
   used to convey which properties MUST be included when serializing a
   given capability object.  When mandatory-to-specify is defined as
   "Yes" for an individual property, it means that if the object
   containing that property is included in an FCI message, then the
   mandatory-to-specify property MUST also be included.











Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 11]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


5.1.  Base Advertisement Object

   The FCIBase object is an abstraction for managing individual CDNI
   capabilities in an opaque manner.

      Property: capability-type

         Description: CDNI capability object type.

         Type: FCI-specific CDNI Payload Type (from the "CDNI Payload
         Types" registry [RFC7736])

         Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.

      Property: capability-value

         Description: CDNI capability object.

         Type: Format/Type is defined by the value of the
         capability-type property above

         Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.

      Property: footprints

         Description: CDNI capability footprint.

         Type: List of CDNI Footprint objects (from the "CDNI Metadata
         Footprint Types" registry [RFC8006])

         Mandatory-to-Specify: No.

5.2.  Encoding

   CDNI FCI objects MUST be encoded using JSON [RFC7159] and MUST also
   follow the recommendations of I-JSON (Internet JSON) [RFC7493].  FCI
   objects are composed of a dictionary of (key,value) pairs where the
   keys are the property names and the values are the associated
   property values.

   The keys of the dictionary are the names of the properties associated
   with the object and are therefore dependent on the specific object
   being encoded (i.e., dependent on the CDNI Payload Type of the
   capability or the CDNI Metadata Footprint Type of the footprint).
   Likewise, the values associated with each property (dictionary key)
   are dependent on the specific object being encoded (i.e., dependent
   on the CDNI Payload Type of the capability or the CDNI Metadata
   Footprint Type of the footprint).



Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 12]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   Dictionary keys (properties) in JSON are case sensitive.  By
   convention, any dictionary key (property) defined by this document
   MUST be lowercase.

5.3.  Delivery Protocol Capability Object

   The Delivery Protocol capability object is used to indicate support
   for one or more of the protocols listed in the "CDNI Metadata
   Protocol Types" registry (defined in [RFC8006]).

      Property: delivery-protocols

         Description: List of supported CDNI delivery protocols.

         Type: List of protocol types (from the "CDNI Metadata Protocol
         Types" registry [RFC8006])

         Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.

5.3.1.  Delivery Protocol Capability Object Serialization

   The following shows an example of Delivery Protocol capability object
   serialization for a CDN that supports only HTTP/1.1 without Transport
   Layer Security (TLS) for content delivery.

   {
     "capabilities": [
       {
         "capability-type": "FCI.DeliveryProtocol",
         "capability-value": {
           "delivery-protocols": [
             "http/1.1",
           ]
         },
         "footprints": [
           <Footprint objects>
         ]
       }
     ]
   }











Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 13]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


5.4.  Acquisition Protocol Capability Object

   The Acquisition Protocol capability object is used to indicate
   support for one or more of the protocols listed in the "CDNI Metadata
   Protocol Types" registry (defined in [RFC8006]).

      Property: acquisition-protocols

         Description: List of supported CDNI acquisition protocols.

         Type: List of protocol types (from the "CDNI Metadata Protocol
         Types" registry [RFC8006])

         Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.

5.4.1.  Acquisition Protocol Capability Object Serialization

   The following shows an example of Acquisition Protocol capability
   object serialization for a CDN that supports HTTP/1.1 with or without
   TLS for content acquisition.

   {
     "capabilities": [
       {
         "capability-type": "FCI.AcquisitionProtocol",
         "capability-value": {
           "acquisition-protocols": [
             "http/1.1",
             "https/1.1"
           ]
         },
         "footprints": [
           <Footprint objects>
         ]
       }
     ]
   }














Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 14]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


5.5.  Redirection Mode Capability Object

   The Redirection Mode capability object is used to indicate support
   for one or more of the modes listed in the "CDNI Capabilities
   Redirection Modes" registry (see Section 6.2).

      Property: redirection-modes

         Description: List of supported CDNI redirection modes.

         Type: List of redirection modes (from the "CDNI Capabilities
         Redirection Modes" registry, defined in Section 6.2)

         Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.

5.5.1.  Redirection Mode Capability Object Serialization

   The following shows an example of Redirection Mode capability object
   serialization for a CDN that supports only iterative (i.e., not
   recursive) redirection with HTTP and DNS.

   {
     "capabilities": [
       {
         "capability-type": "FCI.RedirectionMode",
         "capability-value": {
           "redirection-modes": [
             "DNS-I",
             "HTTP-I"
           ]
         }
         "footprints": [
           <Footprint objects>
         ]
       }
     ]
   }














Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 15]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


5.6.  CDNI Logging Capability Object

   The CDNI Logging capability object is used to indicate support for
   CDNI Logging record-types, as well as CDNI Logging fields that are
   marked as optional for the specified record-types [RFC7937].

      Property: record-type

         Description: Supported CDNI Logging record-type.

         Type: String corresponding to an entry from the "CDNI Logging
         record-types" registry [RFC7937]

         Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.

      Property: fields

         Description: List of supported CDNI Logging fields that are
         optional for the specified record-type.

         Type: List of strings corresponding to entries from the "CDNI
         Logging Field Names" registry [RFC7937]

         Mandatory-to-Specify: No.  Default is that all optional fields
         are supported.  Omission of this field MUST be interpreted as
         "all optional fields are supported".  An empty list MUST be
         interpreted as "no optional fields are supported".  Otherwise,
         if a list of fields is provided, the fields in that list MUST
         be interpreted as "the only optional fields that are
         supported".





















Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 16]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


5.6.1.  CDNI Logging Capability Object Serialization

   The following shows an example of CDNI Logging capability object
   serialization for a CDN that supports the optional Content
   Collection ID CDNI Logging field (but not the optional Session ID
   CDNI Logging field) for the "cdni_http_request_v1" record-type.

   {
     "capabilities": [
       {
         "capability-type": "FCI.Logging",
         "capability-value": {
           "record-type": "cdni_http_request_v1",
           "fields": ["s-ccid"]
         },
         "footprints": [
           <Footprint objects>
         ]
       }
     ]
   }

   The next example shows the CDNI Logging capability object
   serialization for a CDN that supports all optional fields for the
   "cdni_http_request_v1" record-type.

   {
     "capabilities": [
       {
         "capability-type": "FCI.Logging",
         "capability-value": {
           "record-type": "cdni_http_request_v1"
         },
         "footprints": [
           <Footprint objects>
         ]
       }
     ]
   }












Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 17]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   The final example shows the CDNI Logging capability object
   serialization for a CDN that supports none of the optional fields for
   the "cdni_http_request_v1" record-type.

   {
     "capabilities": [
       {
         "capability-type": "FCI.Logging",
         "capability-value": {
           "record-type": "cdni_http_request_v1",
           "fields": []
         },
         "footprints": [
           <Footprint objects>
         ]
       }
     ]
   }

5.7.  CDNI Metadata Capability Object

   The CDNI Metadata capability object is used to indicate support for
   CDNI GenericMetadata types [RFC8006].

      Property: metadata

         Description: List of supported CDNI GenericMetadata types.

         Type: List of strings corresponding to entries from the "CDNI
         Payload Types" registry [RFC7736] that correspond to CDNI
         GenericMetadata objects

         Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.  An empty list MUST be interpreted
         as "no GenericMetadata types are supported", i.e., "only
         structural metadata and simple types are supported"; otherwise,
         the list must be interpreted as containing "the only
         GenericMetadata types that are supported" (in addition to
         structural metadata and simple types) [RFC8006].













Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 18]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


5.7.1.  CDNI Metadata Capability Object Serialization

   The following shows an example of CDNI Metadata capability object
   serialization for a CDN that supports only the SourceMetadata
   GenericMetadata type (i.e., it can acquire and deliver content but
   cannot enforce any security policies, e.g., time, location, or
   protocol Access Control Lists (ACLs)).

   {
     "capabilities": [
       {
         "capability-type": "FCI.Metadata",
         "capability-value": {
           "metadata": ["MI.SourceMetadata"]
         },
         "footprints": [
           <Footprint objects>
         ]
       }
     ]
   }

   The next example shows the CDNI Metadata capability object
   serialization for a CDN that supports only structural metadata (i.e.,
   it can parse metadata as a transit CDN but cannot enforce security
   policies or deliver content).

   {
     "capabilities": [
       {
         "capability-type": "FCI.Metadata",
         "capability-value": {
           "metadata": []
         },
         "footprints": [
           <Footprint objects>
         ]
       }
     ]
   }











Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 19]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  CDNI Payload Types

   This document registers the following CDNI Payload Types under the
   IANA "CDNI Payload Types" registry:

                +-------------------------+---------------+
                | Payload Type            | Specification |
                +-------------------------+---------------+
                | FCI.DeliveryProtocol    | RFC 8008      |
                | FCI.AcquisitionProtocol | RFC 8008      |
                | FCI.RedirectionMode     | RFC 8008      |
                | FCI.Logging             | RFC 8008      |
                | FCI.Metadata            | RFC 8008      |
                +-------------------------+---------------+

6.1.1.  CDNI FCI DeliveryProtocol Payload Type

   Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to distinguish FCI
   advertisement objects for supported delivery protocols

   Interface: FCI

   Encoding: see Section 5.3

6.1.2.  CDNI FCI AcquisitionProtocol Payload Type

   Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to distinguish FCI
   advertisement objects for supported acquisition protocols

   Interface: FCI

   Encoding: see Section 5.4

6.1.3.  CDNI FCI RedirectionMode Payload Type

   Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to distinguish FCI
   advertisement objects for supported redirection modes

   Interface: FCI

   Encoding: see Section 5.5








Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 20]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


6.1.4.  CDNI FCI Logging Payload Type

   Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to distinguish FCI
   advertisement objects for supported CDNI Logging record-types and
   optional CDNI Logging field names

   Interface: FCI

   Encoding: see Section 5.6

6.1.5.  CDNI FCI Metadata Payload Type

   Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to distinguish FCI
   advertisement objects for supported CDNI GenericMetadata types

   Interface: FCI

   Encoding: see Section 5.7

6.2.  "CDNI Capabilities Redirection Modes" Registry

   IANA has created a new "CDNI Capabilities Redirection Modes" registry
   in the "Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Parameters"
   registry.  The "CDNI Capabilities Redirection Modes" namespace
   defines the valid redirection modes that can be advertised as
   supported by a CDN.  Additions to the "CDNI Capabilities Redirection
   Modes" namespace conform to the IETF Review policy as defined in
   [RFC5226].

   The following table defines the initial redirection modes:

    +------------------+----------------------------------+----------+
    | Redirection Mode | Description                      | RFC      |
    +------------------+----------------------------------+----------+
    | DNS-I            | Iterative DNS-based Redirection  | RFC 8008 |
    | DNS-R            | Recursive DNS-based Redirection  | RFC 8008 |
    | HTTP-I           | Iterative HTTP-based Redirection | RFC 8008 |
    | HTTP-R           | Recursive HTTP-based Redirection | RFC 8008 |
    +------------------+----------------------------------+----------+












Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 21]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


7.  Security Considerations

   This specification describes the semantics for capabilities and
   footprint advertisement objects across interconnected CDNs.  It does
   not, however, specify a concrete protocol for transporting those
   objects.  Specific security mechanisms can only be selected for
   concrete protocols that instantiate these semantics.  This document
   does, however, place some high-level security constraints on such
   protocols.

   All protocols that implement these capabilities and footprint
   advertisement objects are REQUIRED to provide integrity and
   authentication services.  Without authentication and integrity, an
   attacker could trivially deny service by forging a footprint
   advertisement from a dCDN that claims the network has no footprint or
   capability.  This would prevent the uCDN from delegating any requests
   to the dCDN.  Since a preexisting relationship between all dCDNs and
   uCDNs is assumed by CDNI, the exchange of any necessary credentials
   could be conducted before the FCI is brought online.  The
   authorization decision to accept advertisements would also follow
   this preexisting relationship and any contractual obligations that it
   stipulates.

   All protocols that implement these capabilities and footprint
   advertisement objects are REQUIRED to provide confidentiality
   services.  Some dCDNs are willing to share information about their
   footprints or capabilities with a uCDN but not with other, competing
   dCDNs.  For example, if a dCDN incurs an outage that reduces
   footprint coverage temporarily, that event could be information the
   dCDN would want to share confidentially with the uCDN.

   As specified in this document, the security requirements of the FCI
   could be met by transport-layer security mechanisms coupled with
   domain certificates as credentials (e.g., TLS transport for HTTP as
   per [RFC2818] and [RFC7230], with usage guidance from [RFC7525])
   between CDNs.  There is no apparent need for further object-level
   security in this framework, as the trust relationships it defines are
   bilateral relationships between uCDNs and dCDNs rather than
   transitive relationships.












Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 22]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC7159]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159,
              March 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.

   [RFC7336]  Peterson, L., Davie, B., and R. van Brandenburg, Ed.,
              "Framework for Content Distribution Network
              Interconnection (CDNI)", RFC 7336, DOI 10.17487/RFC7336,
              August 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7336>.

   [RFC7493]  Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.

   [RFC7937]  Le Faucheur, F., Ed., Bertrand, G., Ed., Oprescu, I., Ed.,
              and R. Peterkofsky, "Content Distribution Network
              Interconnection (CDNI) Logging Interface", RFC 7937,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7937, August 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7937>.

   [RFC8006]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Murray, R., Caulfield, M., and K. Ma,
              "Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI)
              Metadata", RFC 8006, DOI 10.17487/RFC8006, December 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8006>.














Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 23]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2818]  Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.

   [RFC6707]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Le Faucheur, F., and N. Bitar, "Content
              Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Problem
              Statement", RFC 6707, DOI 10.17487/RFC6707,
              September 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6707>.

   [RFC6770]  Bertrand, G., Ed., Stephan, E., Burbridge, T., Eardley,
              P., Ma, K., and G. Watson, "Use Cases for Content Delivery
              Network Interconnection", RFC 6770, DOI 10.17487/RFC6770,
              November 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6770>.

   [RFC7230]  Fielding, R., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7337]  Leung, K., Ed., and Y. Lee, Ed., "Content Distribution
              Network Interconnection (CDNI) Requirements", RFC 7337,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7337, August 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7337>.

   [RFC7525]  Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
              "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525,
              May 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.

   [RFC7736]  Ma, K., "Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI)
              Media Type Registration", RFC 7736, DOI 10.17487/RFC7736,
              December 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7736>.
















Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 24]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


Appendix A.  Main Use Case to Consider

   Focusing on a main use case that contains a simple (yet somewhat
   challenging), realistic, and generally imaginable scenario can help
   narrow down the requirements for the CDNI FCI.  To this end, the
   following (simplified) use case can help clarify the semantics of
   footprints and capabilities for CDNI.  In particular, the intention
   of the use case is to clarify what information needs to be exchanged
   on the CDNI FCI, what types of information need to be supported in a
   mandatory fashion (and which types can be considered optional), and
   what types of information need to be updated with respect to a priori
   established CDNI contracts.

   Use case: A given uCDN has several dCDNs.  It selects one dCDN for
   delivery protocol A and footprint 1 and another dCDN for delivery
   protocol B and footprint 1.  The dCDN that serves delivery protocol B
   has a further, transitive (level-2) dCDN that serves delivery
   protocol B in a subset of footprint 1 where the first-level dCDN
   cannot serve delivery protocol B itself.  What happens if
   capabilities change in the transitive level-2 dCDN that might affect
   how the uCDN selects a level-1 dCDN (e.g., in case the level-2 dCDN
   cannot serve delivery protocol B anymore)?  How will these changes be
   conveyed to the uCDN?  In particular, what information does the uCDN
   need to be able to select a new first-level dCDN, for either all of
   footprint 1 or only the subset of footprint 1 that the transitive
   level-2 dCDN served on behalf of the first-level dCDN?

Appendix B.  Semantics for Footprint Advertisement

   Roughly speaking, "footprint" can be defined as a dCDN's "ability and
   willingness to serve".  However, in addition to simple ability and
   willingness to serve, the uCDN could want additional information
   before deciding which dCDN to select, e.g., "how well" a given dCDN
   can actually serve a given end user request.  The dCDN's ability and
   willingness to serve SHOULD be distinguished from the subjective
   qualitative measurement of how well it can serve a given end user
   request.  One can imagine that such additional information is
   implicitly associated with a given footprint, due to contractual
   agreements, Service Level Agreements (SLAs), business relationships,
   or past perceptions of dCDN quality.  As an alternative, such
   additional information could also be explicitly included with the
   given footprint.

   It is reasonable to assume that a significant part of the actual
   footprint advertisement will occur out-of-band, prior to any CDNI FCI
   advertisement, with footprints defined in contractual agreements
   between participating CDNs.  The reason for this assumption is that
   any contractual agreement is likely to contain specifics about the



Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 25]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   dCDN coverage (footprint) to which the contractual agreement applies.
   In particular, additional information to judge the delivery quality
   associated with a given dCDN footprint might be defined in
   contractual agreements, outside of the CDNI FCI.  Further, one can
   assume that dCDN contractual agreements about the delivery quality
   associated with a given footprint will probably be based on
   high-level aggregated statistics and will not be too detailed.

   Given that a large part of the footprint advertisement will be
   defined in contractual agreements, the semantics of CDNI footprint
   advertisement refer to answering the following question: what exactly
   still needs to be advertised by the CDNI FCI?  For instance, updates
   about temporal failures of part of a footprint can be useful
   information to convey via the CDNI Request Routing interface.  Such
   information would provide updates on information previously agreed
   upon in contracts between the participating CDNs.  In other words,
   the CDNI FCI is a means for a dCDN to provide changes/updates
   regarding a footprint it has previously agreed to serve in a contract
   with a uCDN.

   Generally speaking, one can imagine two categories of footprints to
   be advertised by a dCDN:

   o  A footprint could be defined based on coverage/reachability, where
      "coverage/reachability" refers to a set of prefixes, a geographic
      region, or similar boundary.  The dCDN claims that it can
      cover/reach "end user requests coming from this footprint".

   o  A footprint could be defined based on resources, where "resources"
      refers to Surrogates a dCDN claims to have (e.g., the location of
      Surrogates/resources).  The dCDN claims that "from this footprint"
      it can serve incoming end user requests.

   For each of these footprint types, there are capabilities associated
   with a given footprint:

   o  capabilities such as delivery protocol, redirection mode, and
      metadata, which are supported in the coverage area for a footprint
      that is defined by coverage/reachability, or

   o  capabilities of resources, such as delivery protocol, redirection
      mode, and metadata, which apply to a footprint that is defined by
      resources.

   Resource footprint types are more specific than coverage/reachability
   footprint types, where the actual coverage and reachability are
   extrapolated from the resource location (e.g., a netmask applied to a
   resource IP address to derive an IP prefix).  The specific methods



Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 26]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   for extrapolating coverage/reachability from the resource location
   are beyond the scope of this document.  In the degenerate case, the
   resource address could be specified as a coverage/reachability
   footprint type, in which case no extrapolation is necessary.
   Resource footprint types could expose the internal structure of a
   CDN; this could be undesirable.  As such, the resource footprint
   types are not considered mandatory to support for CDNI.

   Footprints can be viewed as constraints for delegating requests to a
   dCDN: a dCDN footprint advertisement tells the uCDN the limitations
   for delegating a request to the dCDN.  For IP prefixes or ASN(s), the
   footprint signals to the uCDN that it should consider the dCDN a
   candidate only if the IP address of the Request Routing source falls
   within the prefix set (or ASN, respectively).  The CDNI
   specifications do not define how a given uCDN determines what address
   ranges are in a particular ASN.  Similarly, for country codes, a uCDN
   should only consider the dCDN a candidate if it covers the country of
   the Request Routing source.  The CDNI specifications do not define
   how a given uCDN determines the country of the Request Routing
   source.  Multiple footprint constraints are additive: the
   advertisement of different footprint types narrows the dCDN's
   candidacy cumulatively.

   Independent of the exact type of a footprint, a footprint might also
   include the connectivity of a given dCDN to other CDNs that are able
   to serve content to users on behalf of that dCDN, to cover cases with
   cascaded CDNs.  Further, the dCDN needs to be able to express its
   footprint to an interested uCDN in a comprehensive form, e.g., as a
   data set containing the complete footprint.  However, making
   incremental updates to express dynamic changes in state is also
   desirable.

Appendix C.  Semantics for Capabilities Advertisement

   In general, the dCDN needs to be able to express its general
   capabilities to the uCDN.  These general capabilities could indicate
   if the dCDN supports a given service -- for instance, HTTP vs. HTTPS
   delivery.  Furthermore, the dCDN needs to be able to express
   particular capabilities for service delivery in a particular
   footprint area.  For example, the dCDN might in general offer HTTPS
   but not in some specific areas, either for maintenance reasons or
   because the Surrogates covering this particular area cannot deliver
   this type of service.  Hence, in certain cases a footprint and
   capabilities are tied together and cannot be interpreted
   independently of each other.  In such cases, i.e., where capabilities
   need to be expressed on a per-footprint basis, it could be beneficial
   to combine footprint advertisement and capabilities advertisement.




Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 27]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   A high-level and very rough semantic for capabilities is thus the
   following: capabilities are types of information that allow a uCDN to
   determine if a dCDN is able (and willing) to accept (and properly
   handle) a delegated content request.  In addition, capabilities are
   characterized by the fact that this information can change over time
   based on the state of the network or Surrogates.

   At first glance, several broad categories of capabilities seem useful
   to convey via an advertisement interface; however, advertising
   capabilities that change highly dynamically (e.g., real-time delivery
   performance metrics, CDN resource load, or other highly dynamically
   changing QoS information) are beyond the scope of the CDNI FCI.
   First, out of the multitude of possible metrics and capabilities, it
   is hard to agree on a subset and the precise metrics to be used.
   Second, it seems infeasible to specify such highly dynamically
   changing capabilities and the corresponding metrics within a
   reasonable time frame.

   Useful capabilities refer to information that does not change highly
   dynamically and that, in many cases, is absolutely necessary for
   deciding on a particular dCDN for a given end user request.  For
   instance, if an end user request concerns the delivery of a video
   file with a certain protocol, the uCDN needs to know if a given dCDN
   is capable of supporting this delivery protocol.

   Similar to footprint advertisement, it is reasonable to assume that a
   significant part of the actual (resource) capabilities advertisement
   will also occur out-of-band, prior to any CDNI FCI advertisement,
   with capabilities defined in contractual agreements between
   participating CDNs.  The role of capability advertisement is hence
   rather to enable the dCDN to update a uCDN on changes since a
   contract has been set up (e.g., in case a new delivery protocol is
   suddenly being added to the list of supported delivery protocols of a
   given dCDN or in case a certain delivery protocol is suddenly not
   being supported anymore due to failures).  "Capabilities
   advertisement" thus refers to conveying information to a uCDN about
   changes/updates to certain capabilities with respect to a given
   contract.

   Given these semantics, it needs to be decided what exact capabilities
   are useful and how these can be expressed.  Since the details of CDNI
   contracts are not known at the time of this writing (and the CDNI
   interface is better off being agnostic to these contracts anyway), it
   remains to be seen what capabilities will be used to define
   agreements between CDNs in practice.  One implication for
   standardization could be to initially only specify a very limited set
   of mandatory capabilities for advertisement and have, on top of that,




Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 28]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   a flexible data model that allows exchanging additional capabilities
   when needed.  Still, agreement needs to be reached regarding which
   capabilities (if any) will be mandatory among CDNs.

   It is not feasible to enumerate all the possible options for the
   mandatory capabilities listed above (e.g., all the potential delivery
   protocols or metadata options) or anticipate all the future needs for
   additional capabilities.  FCI object extensibility is necessary to
   support future capabilities, as well as a generic protocol for
   conveying any capability information (e.g., with common encoding,
   error handling, and security mechanisms; further requirements for the
   CDNI FCI are listed in [RFC7337]).







































Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 29]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


Acknowledgments

   Jan Seedorf is partially supported by the GreenICN project
   (GreenICN: Architecture and Applications of Green Information Centric
   Networking), a research project supported jointly by the European
   Commission under its 7th Framework Program (contract no. 608518) and
   the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
   (NICT) in Japan (contract no. 167).  The views and conclusions
   contained herein are those of the authors and should not be
   interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or
   endorsements, either expressed or implied, of the GreenICN project,
   the European Commission, or NICT.

   Martin Stiemerling provided initial input to this document and
   valuable comments to the ongoing discussions among the authors of
   this document.  Thanks to Francois Le Faucheur and Scott Wainner for
   providing valuable comments and suggestions for the text.

Authors' Addresses

   Jan Seedorf
   HFT Stuttgart - University of Applied Sciences Stuttgart
   Schellingstrasse 24
   Stuttgart  70174
   Germany

   Phone: +49-0711-8926-2801
   Email: jan.seedorf@hft-stuttgart.de


   Jon Peterson
   NeuStar
   1800 Sutter St. Suite 570
   Concord, CA  94520
   United States of America

   Email: jon.peterson@neustar.biz














Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 30]


RFC 8008        CDNI RR Footprint/Capabilities Semantics   December 2016


   Stefano Previdi
   Cisco Systems
   Via Del Serafico 200
   Rome  0144
   Italy

   Email: sprevidi@cisco.com


   Ray van Brandenburg
   TNO
   Anna van Buerenplein 1
   The Hague  2595DA
   The Netherlands

   Phone: +31-88-866-7000
   Email: ray.vanbrandenburg@tno.nl


   Kevin J. Ma
   Ericsson
   43 Nagog Park
   Acton, MA  01720
   United States of America

   Phone: +1-978-844-5100
   Email: kevin.j.ma@ericsson.com
























Seedorf, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 31]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/