draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-07.txt   draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-08.txt 
CDNI J. Seedorf CDNI J. Seedorf
Internet-Draft NEC Internet-Draft NEC
Intended status: Informational J. Peterson Intended status: Informational J. Peterson
Expires: February 19, 2016 Neustar Expires: April 20, 2016 Neustar
S. Previdi S. Previdi
Cisco Cisco
R. van Brandenburg R. van Brandenburg
TNO TNO
K. Ma K. Ma
Ericsson Ericsson
August 18, 2015 October 18, 2015
CDNI Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities Semantics CDNI Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities Semantics
draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-07 draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-08
Abstract Abstract
This document captures the semantics of the "Footprint and This document captures the semantics of the "Footprint and
Capabilities Advertisement" part of the CDNI Request Routing Capabilities Advertisement" part of the CDNI Request Routing
interface, i.e., the desired meaning of "Footprint" and interface, i.e., the desired meaning of "Footprint" and
"Capabilities" in the CDNI context, and what the "Footprint and "Capabilities" in the CDNI context, and what the "Footprint and
Capabilities Advertisement Interface (FCI)" offers within CDNI. The Capabilities Advertisement Interface (FCI)" offers within CDNI. The
document also provides guidelines for the CDNI FCI protocol. It document also provides guidelines for the CDNI FCI protocol. It
further defines a Base Advertisement Object, the necessary registries further defines a Base Advertisement Object, the necessary registries
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 19, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 37 skipping to change at page 2, line 37
2.3. Advertisement versus Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. Advertisement versus Queries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Avoiding or Handling 'cheating' dCDNs . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4. Avoiding or Handling 'cheating' dCDNs . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5. Focusing on Main Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5. Focusing on Main Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Main Use Case to Consider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Main Use Case to Consider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Semantics for Footprint Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Semantics for Footprint Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Semantics for Capabilities Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Semantics for Capabilities Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Negotiation of Support for Optional Types of 6. Negotiation of Support for Optional Types of
Footprint/Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Footprint/Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Capability Advertisement Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Capability Advertisement Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Base Advertisement Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.1. Base Advertisement Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Delivery Protocol Capability Object . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.2. Delivery Protocol Capability Object . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3. Acquisition Protocol Capability Object . . . . . . . . . 15 7.3. Acquisition Protocol Capability Object . . . . . . . . . 15
7.4. Redirection Mode Capability Object . . . . . . . . . . . 15 7.4. Redirection Mode Capability Object . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.5. Capability Advertisement Object Serialization . . . . . . 15 7.5. Capability Advertisement Object Serialization . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. CDNI Payload Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1. CDNI Payload Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1.1. CDNI FCI DeliveryProtocol Payload Type . . . . . . . 17 8.1.1. CDNI FCI DeliveryProtocol Payload Type . . . . . . . 17
8.1.2. CDNI FCI AcuiqisitionProtocol Payload Type . . . . . 17 8.1.2. CDNI FCI AcuiqisitionProtocol Payload Type . . . . . 17
8.1.3. CDNI FCI RedirectionMode Payload Type . . . . . . . . 17 8.1.3. CDNI FCI RedirectionMode Payload Type . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. Redirection Mode Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.2. Redirection Mode Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction and Scope 1. Introduction and Scope
The CDNI working group is working on a set of protocols to enable the The CDNI working group is working on a set of protocols to enable the
interconnection of multiple CDNs to a CDN federation. This CDN- interconnection of multiple CDNs to a CDN federation. This CDN-
federation should serve multiple purposes, as discussed in [RFC6770], federation should serve multiple purposes, as discussed in [RFC6770],
for instance, to extend the reach of a given CDN to areas in the for instance, to extend the reach of a given CDN to areas in the
network which are not covered by this particular CDN. network which are not covered by this particular CDN.
skipping to change at page 17, line 5 skipping to change at page 17, line 15
+-------------------------+---------------+ +-------------------------+---------------+
| Payload Type | Specification | | Payload Type | Specification |
+-------------------------+---------------+ +-------------------------+---------------+
| FCI.DeliveryProtocol | RFCthis | | FCI.DeliveryProtocol | RFCthis |
| | | | | |
| FCI.AcquisitionProtocol | RFCthis | | FCI.AcquisitionProtocol | RFCthis |
| | | | | |
| FCI.RedirectionMode | RFCthis | | FCI.RedirectionMode | RFCthis |
+-------------------------+---------------+ +-------------------------+---------------+
[RFC Editor: Please replace RFCthis with the published RFC number for
this document.]
8.1.1. CDNI FCI DeliveryProtocol Payload Type 8.1.1. CDNI FCI DeliveryProtocol Payload Type
Purpose: The purpose of this payload type is to distinguish FCI Purpose: The purpose of this payload type is to distinguish FCI
advertisement objects for supported delivery protocols advertisement objects for supported delivery protocols
Interface: FCI Interface: FCI
Encoding: see Section 7 Encoding: see Section 7
8.1.2. CDNI FCI AcuiqisitionProtocol Payload Type 8.1.2. CDNI FCI AcuiqisitionProtocol Payload Type
skipping to change at page 17, line 35 skipping to change at page 17, line 48
Purpose: The purpose of this payload type is to distinguish FCI Purpose: The purpose of this payload type is to distinguish FCI
advertisement objects for supported redirection modes advertisement objects for supported redirection modes
Interface: FCI Interface: FCI
Encoding: see Section 7 Encoding: see Section 7
8.2. Redirection Mode Registry 8.2. Redirection Mode Registry
The IANA is requested to create a new "CDNI Capabilities Redirection The IANA is requested to create a new "CDNI Capabilities Redirection
Modes" registry. The "CDNI Capabilities Redirection Modes" namespace Modes" registry in the "Content Delivery Networks Interconnection
defines the valid redirection modes that may be advertised as (CDNI) Parameters" category. The "CDNI Capabilities Redirection
supported by a CDN. Additions to the Redirection Mode namespace Modes" namespace defines the valid redirection modes that may be
conform to the "IETF Review" policy as defined in [RFC5226]. advertised as supported by a CDN. Additions to the Redirection Mode
namespace conform to the "IETF Review" policy as defined in
[RFC5226].
The following table defines the initial Redirection Modes: The following table defines the initial Redirection Modes:
+------------------+----------------------------------+---------+ +------------------+----------------------------------+---------+
| Redirection Mode | Description | RFC | | Redirection Mode | Description | RFC |
+------------------+----------------------------------+---------+ +------------------+----------------------------------+---------+
| DNS-I | Iterative DNS-based Redirection | RFCthis | | DNS-I | Iterative DNS-based Redirection | RFCthis |
| | | | | | | |
| DNS-R | Recursive DNS-based Redirection | RFCthis | | DNS-R | Recursive DNS-based Redirection | RFCthis |
| | | | | | | |
| HTTP-I | Iterative HTTP-based Redirection | RFCthis | | HTTP-I | Iterative HTTP-based Redirection | RFCthis |
| | | | | | | |
| HTTP-R | Recursive HTTP-based Redirection | RFCthis | | HTTP-R | Recursive HTTP-based Redirection | RFCthis |
+------------------+----------------------------------+---------+ +------------------+----------------------------------+---------+
[RFC Editor: Please replace RFCthis with the published RFC number for
this document.]
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
This specification describes the semantics for capabilities and This specification describes the semantics for capabilities and
footprint advertisement objects in content distribution networks. It footprint advertisement objects in content distribution networks. It
does not, however, specify a concrete protocol for transporting those does not, however, specify a concrete protocol for transporting those
objects, or even a specific object syntax. Specific security objects, or even a specific object syntax. Specific security
mechanisms can only be selected for concrete protocols that mechanisms can only be selected for concrete protocols that
instantiate these semantics. This document does, however, place some instantiate these semantics. This document does, however, place some
high-level security constraints on such protocols. high-level security constraints on such protocols.
skipping to change at page 18, line 45 skipping to change at page 19, line 16
confidentially with the uCDN. Protocols implementing these semantics confidentially with the uCDN. Protocols implementing these semantics
SHOULD provide confidentiality services. SHOULD provide confidentiality services.
As specified in this document, the security requirements of the FCI As specified in this document, the security requirements of the FCI
could be met by hop-by-hop transport-layer security mechanisms could be met by hop-by-hop transport-layer security mechanisms
coupled with domain certificates as credentials. There is no coupled with domain certificates as credentials. There is no
apparent need for further object-level security in this framework, as apparent need for further object-level security in this framework, as
the trust relationships it defines are bilateral relationships the trust relationships it defines are bilateral relationships
between uCDNs and dCDNs rather than transitive relationships. between uCDNs and dCDNs rather than transitive relationships.
10. Normative References 10. References
10.1. 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>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-cdni-logging] [I-D.ietf-cdni-logging]
Faucheur, F., Bertrand, G., Oprescu, I., and R. Faucheur, F., Bertrand, G., Oprescu, I., and R.
Peterkofsky, "CDNI Logging Interface", draft-ietf-cdni- Peterkofsky, "CDNI Logging Interface", draft-ietf-cdni-
logging-19 (work in progress), July 2015. logging-20 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-cdni-media-type] [I-D.ietf-cdni-media-type]
Ma, K., "CDNI Media Type Registration draft-ietf-cdni- Ma, K., "CDNI Media Type Registration", draft-ietf-cdni-
media-type-00", August 2015. media-type-06 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-cdni-metadata] [I-D.ietf-cdni-metadata]
Niven-Jenkins, B., Murray, R., Caulfield, M., and K. Ma, Niven-Jenkins, B., Murray, R., Caulfield, M., and K. Ma,
"CDN Interconnection Metadata", draft-ietf-cdni- "CDN Interconnection Metadata", draft-ietf-cdni-
metadata-11 (work in progress), July 2015. metadata-11 (work in progress), July 2015.
[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 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6707] Niven-Jenkins, B., Le Faucheur, F., and N. Bitar, "Content [RFC6707] Niven-Jenkins, B., Le Faucheur, F., and N. Bitar, "Content
Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Problem Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Problem
Statement", RFC 6707, DOI 10.17487/RFC6707, September Statement", RFC 6707, DOI 10.17487/RFC6707, September
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6707>. 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6707>.
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
21 lines changed or deleted 35 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/