Content Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Requirements
draft-lefaucheur-cdni-requirements-02

 
Document
Type Replaced Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2011-09-12 (latest revision 2011-07-08)
Replaced by draft-ietf-cdni-requirements
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
plain text pdf html
Stream
Stream state (No stream defined)
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG
IESG state Replaced by draft-ietf-cdni-requirements
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

Email authors IPR References Referenced by Nits Search lists

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-lefaucheur-cdni-requirements-02.txt

Abstract

Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) are frequently used for large-scale content delivery. As a result, existing CDN providers are scaling up their infrastructure and many Network Service Providers (NSPs) are deploying their own CDNs. There is a requirement for interconnecting standalone CDNs so that their collective CDN footprint can be leveraged for the end-to-end delivery of content from Content Service Providers (CSPs) to end users. The Content Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) working group has been chartered to develop an interoperable and scalable solution for such CDN interconnection. The goal of the present document is to outline the requirements for the solution and interfaces to be specified by the CDNI working group. Requirements Language The key words "Must", "Should" and "May" in this document are to be interpreted in the following way: o "Must" indicates requirements that are to be supported by the CDNI protocols in the stated scope (aka "within initial CDNI scope" or "beyond initial scope"). A requirement is stated as a "Must" when it is established by that it can be met without compromising the targeted schedule for WG deliverables, or when it is established that specifying a solution without meeting this requirement would not make sense and would justify re-adjusting the WG schedule, or both. o "Should" indicates requirements that are to be supported by the CDNI protocols in the stated scope (aka "within initial CDNI scope" or "beyond initial scope") unless the WG realizes at a later stage that attempting to meet this requirement would compromise the overall WG schedule (for example it would involve complexities that would result in significantly delaying the deliverables). o "May" indicates requirements that are to be supported by the CDNI protocols in the stated scope (aka "within initial CDNI scope" or "beyond initial scope") provided that dedicating WG resources to this work does not prevent addressing "Should" and "Must" requirements and that attempting to meet this requirement would not compromise the overall WG schedule.

Authors

Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch@cisco.com)
Yiu Lee (yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com)
Kent Leung (kleung@cisco.com)
Mahesh Viveganandhan (mvittal@cisco.com)
Grant Watson (grant.watson@bt.com)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)