draft-ietf-cdi-model-02.txt		rfc3466.txt
	Network Working Group M. Day		Network Working Group M. Day
	Internet-Draft Cisco		Request for Comments: 3466 Cisco
	Expires: November 1, 2002 B. Cain		Category: Informational B. Cain
	Storigen		Storigen
	G. Tomlinson		G. Tomlinson
	CacheFlow		Tomlinson Group
	P. Rzewski		P. Rzewski
	Inktomi		Media Publisher, Inc.
	May 3, 2002		February 2003
	A Model for Content Internetworking (CDI)		A Model for Content Internetworking (CDI)
	draft-ietf-cdi-model-02.txt
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with		This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
	all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.		not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
			memo is unlimited.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
	www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on November 1, 2002.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.		Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
	Abstract		Abstract
	Content [distribution] internetworking (CDI) is the technology for		Content (distribution) internetworking (CDI) is the technology for
	interconnecting content networks, sometimes previously called		interconnecting content networks, sometimes previously called
	"content peering" or "CDN peering." A common vocabulary helps the		"content peering" or "CDN peering". A common vocabulary helps the
	process of discussing such interconnection and interoperation. This		process of discussing such interconnection and interoperation. This
	document introduces content networks and content internetworking, and		document introduces content networks and content internetworking, and
	defines elements for such a common vocabulary.		defines elements for such a common vocabulary.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Content Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Content Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2.1 Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1 Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.2 Caching Proxies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2 Caching Proxies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.3 Server Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.3 Server Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.4 Content Distribution Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.4 Content Distribution Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.4.1 Historic Evolution of CDNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		2.4.1 Historic Evolution of CDNs . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	2.4.2 Describing CDN Value: Scale and Reach . . . . . . . . . . . 9		2.4.2 Describing CDN Value: Scale and Reach. . . . . . 8
	3. Content Network Model Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		3. Content Network Model Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	4. Content Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		4. Content Internetworking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5. Content Internetworking Model Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		5. Content Internetworking Model Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		9. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		10. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Content networks are of increasing importance to the overall		Content networks are of increasing importance to the overall
	architecture of the Web. This document presents a vocabulary for use		architecture of the Web. This document presents a vocabulary for use
	in developing technology for interconnecting content networks, or		in developing technology for interconnecting content networks, or
	"content internetworking."		"content internetworking".
	The accepted name for the technology of interconnecting content		The accepted name for the technology of interconnecting content
	networks is "content internetworking." For historical reasons, we		networks is "content internetworking". For historical reasons, we
	abbreviate this term using the acronym CDI (from "content		abbreviate this term using the acronym CDI (from "content
	distribution internetworking"). Earlier names relied on analogy with		distribution internetworking"). Earlier names relied on analogy with
	peering and interconnection of IP networks; thus we had "content		peering and interconnection of IP networks; thus we had "content
	peering" and "CDN peering". All of these other names are now		peering" and "CDN peering". All of these other names are now
	deprecated, and we have worked to establish consistent usage of		deprecated, and we have worked to establish consistent usage of
	"content internetworking" and "CDI" throughout the drafts of the IETF		"content internetworking" and "CDI" throughout the documents of the
	CDI group.		IETF CDI group.
	The terminology in this document builds from the previous taxonomy of		The terminology in this document builds from the previous taxonomy of
	web caching and replication in RFC 3040 [3] . In particular, we have		web caching and replication in RFC 3040 [3] . In particular, we have
	attempted to avoid the use of the common terms "proxies" or "caches"		attempted to avoid the use of the common terms "proxies" or "caches"
	in favor of more specific terms defined by that document, such as		in favor of more specific terms defined by that document, such as
	"caching proxy."		"caching proxy".
	Section 2 provides background on content networks. Section 3		Section 2 provides background on content networks. Section 3
	introduces the terms used for elements of a content network and		introduces the terms used for elements of a content network and
	explains how those terms are used. Section 4 provides additional		explains how those terms are used. Section 4 provides additional
	background on interconnecting content networks, following which		background on interconnecting content networks, following which
	Section 5 introduces additional terms and explains how those		Section 5 introduces additional terms and explains how those
	internetworking terms are used.		internetworking terms are used.
	[Note to RFC Editor: This entire paragraph may be deleted so as to
	avoid references to internet-drafts in RFCs.] The IETF CDI effort has
	produced a number of other documents related to content
	internetworking. Other documents providing general information about
	CDI are: "Content Internetworking Scenarios" [5], which enumerates
	scenarios for content-internetworking-related interactions; "Content
	Internetworking Architectural Overview" [4], which gives an overall
	architecture of the elements for CDI; and "Known CDN Request-Routing
	Mechanisms" [7], which summarizes known mechanisms for request-
	routing. In addition, there are documents describing the
	requirements for various aspects of CDI: "Request-Routing
	Requirements for Content Internetworking" [8], "Distribution
	Requirements for Content Internetworking" [9], and "Content
	Internetworking (CDI) Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting
	Requirements" [6]
	2. Content Networks		2. Content Networks
	The past several years have seen the evolution of technologies		The past several years have seen the evolution of technologies
	centered around "content." Protocols, appliances, and entire markets		centered around "content". Protocols, appliances, and entire markets
	have been created exclusively for the location, download, and usage		have been created exclusively for the location, download, and usage
	tracking of content. Some sample technologies in this area have		tracking of content. Some sample technologies in this area have
	included web caching proxies, content management tools, intelligent		included web caching proxies, content management tools, intelligent
	"web switches", and advanced log analysis tools.		"web switches", and advanced log analysis tools.
	When used together, these tools form new types of networks, dubbed		When used together, these tools form new types of networks, dubbed
	"content networks". Whereas network infrastructures have		"content networks". Whereas network infrastructures have
	traditionally processed information at layers 1 through 3 of the OSI		traditionally processed information at layers 1 through 3 of the OSI
	stack, content networks include network infrastructure that exists in		stack, content networks include network infrastructure that exists in
	layers 4 through 7. Whereas lower-layer network infrastructures		layers 4 through 7. Whereas lower-layer network infrastructures
	skipping to change at page 6, line 44		skipping to change at page 5, line 47
	Note that this diagram shows only one possible configuration, but		Note that this diagram shows only one possible configuration, but
	many others are also useful. In particular, the client may be able		many others are also useful. In particular, the client may be able
	to communicate directly with multiple caching proxies. RFC 3040 [3]		to communicate directly with multiple caching proxies. RFC 3040 [3]
	contains additional examples of how multiple caching proxies may be		contains additional examples of how multiple caching proxies may be
	used.		used.
	2.3 Server Farms		2.3 Server Farms
	Another type of content network that has been in widespread use for		Another type of content network that has been in widespread use for
	several years is a server farm. A typical server farm makes use of a		several years is a server farm. A typical server farm makes use of a
	so-called "intelligent" or "content" switch (i.e. one that uses		so-called "intelligent" or "content" switch (i.e., one that uses
	information in OSI layers 4-7). The switch examines content requests		information in OSI layers 4-7). The switch examines content requests
	and dispatches them among a (potentially large) group of servers.		and dispatches them among a (potentially large) group of servers.
	Some of the goals of a server farm include:		Some of the goals of a server farm include:
	o Creating the impression that the group of servers is actually a		o Creating the impression that the group of servers is actually a
	single origin site.		single origin site.
	o Load-balancing of requests across all servers in the group.		o Load-balancing of requests across all servers in the group.
	skipping to change at page 9, line 45		skipping to change at page 8, line 50
	operating as splitters (serving out multiple copies of a stream).		operating as splitters (serving out multiple copies of a stream).
	The splitter function may be instead of, or in addition to, a role as		The splitter function may be instead of, or in addition to, a role as
	a caching proxy. However, the basic elements defined in this model		a caching proxy. However, the basic elements defined in this model
	are still intended to apply to the interconnection of content		are still intended to apply to the interconnection of content
	networks that are distributing streaming media.		networks that are distributing streaming media.
	2.4.2 Describing CDN Value: Scale and Reach		2.4.2 Describing CDN Value: Scale and Reach
	There are two fundamental elements that give a CDN value: outsourcing		There are two fundamental elements that give a CDN value: outsourcing
	infrastructure and improved content delivery. A CDN allows multiple		infrastructure and improved content delivery. A CDN allows multiple
	surrogates to act on behalf of an orgin server, therefore removing		surrogates to act on behalf of an origin server, therefore removing
	the delivery of content from a centralized site to multiple and		the delivery of content from a centralized site to multiple and
	(usually) highly distributed sites. We refer to increased aggregate		(usually) highly distributed sites. We refer to increased aggregate
	infrastructure size as "scale." In addition, a CDN can be constructed		infrastructure size as "scale". In addition, a CDN can be
	with copies of content near to end users, overcoming issues of		constructed with copies of content near to end users, overcoming
	network size, network congestion, and network failures. We refer to		issues of network size, network congestion, and network failures. We
	increased diversity of content locations as "reach."		refer to increased diversity of content locations as "reach".
	In a typical (non-internetworked) CDN, a single service provider		In a typical (non-internetworked) CDN, a single service provider
	operates the request-routers, the surrogates, and the content		operates the request-routers, the surrogates, and the content
	distributors. In addition, that service provider establishes		distributors. In addition, that service provider establishes
	(business) relationships with content publishers and acts on behalf		(business) relationships with content publishers and acts on behalf
	of their origin sites to provide a distributed delivery system. The		of their origin sites to provide a distributed delivery system. The
	value of that CDN to a content provider is a combination of its scale		value of that CDN to a content provider is a combination of its scale
	and its reach.		and its reach.
	3. Content Network Model Terms		3. Content Network Model Terms
	skipping to change at page 11, line 39		skipping to change at page 10, line 7
	CDN		CDN
	Content Delivery Network or Content Distribution Network. A type		Content Delivery Network or Content Distribution Network. A type
	of CONTENT NETWORK in which the CONTENT NETWORK ELEMENTS are		of CONTENT NETWORK in which the CONTENT NETWORK ELEMENTS are
	arranged for more effective delivery of CONTENT to CLIENTS.		arranged for more effective delivery of CONTENT to CLIENTS.
	Typically a CDN consists of a REQUEST-ROUTING SYSTEM, SURROGATES,		Typically a CDN consists of a REQUEST-ROUTING SYSTEM, SURROGATES,
	a DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, and an ACCOUNTING SYSTEM.		a DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, and an ACCOUNTING SYSTEM.
	CLIENT		CLIENT
	A program that sends CONTENT REQUESTS and receives corresponding		A program that sends CONTENT REQUESTS and receives corresponding
	CONTENT RESPONSES. [Note: this is similar to the definition in		CONTENT RESPONSES. (Note: this is similar to the definition in
	RFC 2616 [1] but we do not require establishment of a connection.]		RFC 2616 [1] but we do not require establishment of a connection.)
	CONTENT		CONTENT
	Any form of digital data, CONTENT approximately corresponds to		Any form of digital data, CONTENT approximately corresponds to
	what is referred to as an "entity" in RFC 2616 [1]. One important		what is referred to as an "entity" in RFC 2616 [1]. One important
	form of CONTENT with additional constraints on DISTRIBUTION and		form of CONTENT with additional constraints on DISTRIBUTION and
	DELIVERY is CONTINUOUS MEDIA.		DELIVERY is CONTINUOUS MEDIA.
	CONTENT NETWORK		CONTENT NETWORK
	An arrangement of CONTENT NETWORK ELEMENTS, controlled by a common		An arrangement of CONTENT NETWORK ELEMENTS, controlled by a common
	management in some fashion.		management in some fashion.
	skipping to change at page 13, line 12		skipping to change at page 11, line 30
	DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM		DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
	A collection of CONTENT NETWORK ELEMENTS that support DISTRIBUTION		A collection of CONTENT NETWORK ELEMENTS that support DISTRIBUTION
	for a single CONTENT NETWORK. The DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM also		for a single CONTENT NETWORK. The DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM also
	propagates CONTENT SIGNALs.		propagates CONTENT SIGNALs.
	ORIGIN		ORIGIN
	The point at which CONTENT first enters a DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.		The point at which CONTENT first enters a DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.
	The ORIGIN for any item of CONTENT is the server or set of servers		The ORIGIN for any item of CONTENT is the server or set of servers
	at the "core" of the distribution, holding the "master" or		at the "core" of the distribution, holding the "master" or
	"authoritative" copy of that CONTENT. [Note: We believe this		"authoritative" copy of that CONTENT. (Note: We believe this
	definition is compatible with that for "origin server" in RFC 2616		definition is compatible with that for "origin server" in RFC 2616
	[1] but includes additional constraints useful for CDI.]		[1] but includes additional constraints useful for CDI.)
	PUBLISHER		PUBLISHER
	The party that ultimately controls the CONTENT and its		The party that ultimately controls the CONTENT and its
	distribution.		distribution.
	REACHABLE SURROGATES		REACHABLE SURROGATES
	The collection of SURROGATES that can be contacted via a		The collection of SURROGATES that can be contacted via a
	particular DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM or REQUEST-ROUTING SYSTEM.		particular DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM or REQUEST-ROUTING SYSTEM.
	REQUEST-ROUTING		REQUEST-ROUTING
	skipping to change at page 14, line 9		skipping to change at page 12, line 29
	USER AGENT		USER AGENT
	The CLIENT which initiates a REQUEST. These are often browsers,		The CLIENT which initiates a REQUEST. These are often browsers,
	editors, spiders (web-traversing robots), or other end user tools.		editors, spiders (web-traversing robots), or other end user tools.
	[Note: this definition is identical to the one in RFC 2616 [1].]		[Note: this definition is identical to the one in RFC 2616 [1].]
	4. Content Internetworking		4. Content Internetworking
	There are limits to how large any one network's scale and reach can		There are limits to how large any one network's scale and reach can
	be. Increasing either scale or reach is ultimately limited by the		be. Increasing either scale or reach is ultimately limited by the
	cost of equipment, the space available for deploying equipment, and/		cost of equipment, the space available for deploying equipment,
	or the demand for that scale/reach of infrastructure. Sometimes a		and/or the demand for that scale/reach of infrastructure. Sometimes
	particular audience is tied to a single service provider or a small		a particular audience is tied to a single service provider or a small
	set of providers by constraints of technology, economics, or law.		set of providers by constraints of technology, economics, or law.
	Other times, a network provider may be able to manage surrogates and		Other times, a network provider may be able to manage surrogates and
	a distribution system, but may have no direct relationship with		a distribution system, but may have no direct relationship with
	content providers. Such a provider wants to have a means of		content providers. Such a provider wants to have a means of
	affiliating their delivery and distribution infrastructure with other		affiliating their delivery and distribution infrastructure with other
	parties who have content to distribute.		parties who have content to distribute.
	Content internetworking allows different content networks to share		Content internetworking allows different content networks to share
	resources so as to provide larger scale and/or reach to each		resources so as to provide larger scale and/or reach to each
	participant than they could otherwise achieve. By using commonly		participant than they could otherwise achieve. By using commonly
	skipping to change at page 16, line 41		skipping to change at page 14, line 34
	CONTENT NETWORK, has agreed to perform REQUEST-ROUTING on behalf		CONTENT NETWORK, has agreed to perform REQUEST-ROUTING on behalf
	of another CONTENT NETWORK, or has agreed to provide ACCOUNTING		of another CONTENT NETWORK, or has agreed to provide ACCOUNTING
	data to another CONTENT NETWORK. Contrast with ORIGINATING.		data to another CONTENT NETWORK. Contrast with ORIGINATING.
	INJECTION		INJECTION
	A "send-only" form of DISTRIBUTION INTERNETWORKING that takes		A "send-only" form of DISTRIBUTION INTERNETWORKING that takes
	place from an ORIGIN to a CONTENT DESTINATION.		place from an ORIGIN to a CONTENT DESTINATION.
	INTER-		INTER-
	Describes activity that involves more than one CONTENT NETWORK		Describes activity that involves more than one CONTENT NETWORK
	(e.g. INTER-CDN). Contrast with INTRA-.		(e.g., INTER-CDN). Contrast with INTRA-.
	INTRA-		INTRA-
	Describes activity within a single CONTENT NETWORK (e.g. INTRA-		Describes activity within a single CONTENT NETWORK (e.g., INTRA-
	CDN). Contrast with INTER-.		CDN). Contrast with INTER-.
	NEGOTIATED RELATIONSHIP		NEGOTIATED RELATIONSHIP
	A relationship whose terms and conditions are partially or		A relationship whose terms and conditions are partially or
	completely established outside the context of CONTENT NETWORK		completely established outside the context of CONTENT NETWORK
	internetworking protocols.		internetworking protocols.
	ORIGINATING		ORIGINATING
	Describes a CONTENT NETWORK that, as part of a NEGOTIATED		Describes a CONTENT NETWORK that, as part of a NEGOTIATED
	RELATIONSHIP, submits a DISTRIBUTION task to another CONTENT		RELATIONSHIP, submits a DISTRIBUTION task to another CONTENT
	skipping to change at page 19, line 13		skipping to change at page 16, line 5
	corruption of ACCOUNTING data and similar meta-content.		corruption of ACCOUNTING data and similar meta-content.
	7. Acknowledgements		7. Acknowledgements
	The authors acknowledge the contributions and comments of Fred		The authors acknowledge the contributions and comments of Fred
	Douglis (AT&T), Don Gilletti (CacheFlow), Markus Hoffmann (Lucent),		Douglis (AT&T), Don Gilletti (CacheFlow), Markus Hoffmann (Lucent),
	Barron Housel (Cisco), Barbara Liskov (Cisco), John Martin (Network		Barron Housel (Cisco), Barbara Liskov (Cisco), John Martin (Network
	Appliance), Nalin Mistry (Nortel Networks) Raj Nair (Cisco), Hilarie		Appliance), Nalin Mistry (Nortel Networks) Raj Nair (Cisco), Hilarie
	Orman (Volera), Doug Potter (Cisco), and Oliver Spatscheck (AT&T).		Orman (Volera), Doug Potter (Cisco), and Oliver Spatscheck (AT&T).
	[Note to RFC Editor: The last normative reference is [3], all		8. Normative References
	subsequent references starting with [4] can be deleted.]
	References
	[1] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,		[1] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
	Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --		Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
	HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/		HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
	rfc2616.txt>.
	[2] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A. and R. Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming		[2] Schulzrinne, H., Rao, A. and R. Lanphier, "Real Time Streaming
	Protocol", RFC 2326, April 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/		Protocol", RFC 2326, April 1998.
	rfc2326.txt>.
	[3] Cooper, I., Melve, I. and G. Tomlinson, "Internet Web		[3] Cooper, I., Melve, I. and G. Tomlinson, "Internet Web
	Replication and Caching Taxonomy", RFC 3040, June 2000, <http://		Replication and Caching Taxonomy", RFC 3040, June 2000.
	www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3040.txt>.
	[4] Green, M., Cain, B., Tomlinson, G., Thomas, S. and P. Rzewskip,
	"Content Internetworking Architectural Overview", draft-ietf-
	cdi-architecture-00.txt (work in progress), February 2002,
	<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cdi-
	architecture-00.txt>.
	[5] Day, M., Gilletti, D. and P. Rzewski, "Content Internetworking
	Scenarios", draft-ietf-cdi-scenarios-00.txt (work in progress),
	February 2002, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-
	cdi-scenarios-00.txt>.
	[6] Gilletti, D., Nair, R., Scharber, J. and J. Guha, "Content
	Internetworking (CDI) Authentication, Authorization, and
	Accounting Requirements", draft-ietf-cdi-aaa-reqs-00.txt (work
	in progress), Februrary 2002, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-
	drafts/draft-ietf-cdi-aaa-reqs-00.txt>.
	[7] Barbir, A., Cain, B., Douglis, F., Green, M., Hoffmann, M.,
	Nair, R., Potter, D. and O. Spatscheck, "Known CDN Request-
	Routing Mechanisms", draft-ietf-cdi-known-request-routing-00.txt
	(work in progress), February 2002, <http://www.ietf.org/
	internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cdi-known-request-routing-00.txt>.
	[8] Cain, B., Spatscheck, O., May, M. and A. Barbir, "Request-
	Routing Requirements for Content Internetworking", draft-ietf-
	cdi-request-routing-reqs-00.txt (work in progress), February
	2002, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cdi-
	request-routing-reqs-00.txt>.
	[9] Amini, L., Spatscheck, O. and S. Thomas, "Distribution
	Requirements for Content Internetworking", draft-ietf-cdi-
	distribution-reqs-00.txt (work in progress), February 2002,
	<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cdi-
	distribution-reqs-00.txt>.
	Authors' Addresses		9. Authors' Addresses
	Mark Stuart Day		Mark Stuart Day
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	1414 Massachusetts Avenue		1414 Massachusetts Avenue
	Boxborough, MA 01719		Boxborough, MA 01719
	US		US
	Phone: +1 978 936 1089		Phone: +1 978 936 1089
	EMail: markday@cisco.com		EMail: mday@alum.mit.edu
	Brad Cain		Brad Cain
	Storigen Systems		Storigen Systems
	650 Suffolk Street		650 Suffolk Street
	Lowell, MA 01854		Lowell, MA 01854
	US		US
	Phone: +1 978-323-4454		Phone: +1 978 323 4454
	EMail: bcain@storigen.com		EMail: bcain@storigen.com
	Gary Tomlinson		Gary Tomlinson
	CacheFlow, Inc.		Tomlinson Group
	12034 134th Ct. NE Suite 201		14324 227th Ave NE
	Redmond, WA 98052		Woodinville, WA 98072
	US
	Phone: +1 425 820 3009		Phone: +1 425 503 0881
	EMail: garyt@cacheflow.com		EMail: gary@tomlinsongroup.net
	Phil Rzewski		Phil Rzewski
	Inktomi		30 Jennifer Place
	4100 East Third Avenue, MS FC2-4		San Francisco, CA 94107
	Foster City, CA 94404
	US		US
	Phone: +1 650 653 2487		Phone: +1 650 303 3790
	EMail: philr@inktomi.com		EMail: philrz@yahoo.com
	Full Copyright Statement		10. Full Copyright Statement
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.		Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
	This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to		This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
	others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it		others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
	or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published		or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
	and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any		and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
	kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are		kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
	included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this		included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
	document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing		document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
	the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other		the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
	Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of		Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
End of changes. 37 change blocks.
	143 lines changed or deleted		67 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/