MoQ CDN Provisioning
draft-englishm-moq-cdn-provisioning-00

Media Over QUIC                                               M. English
Internet-Draft                                                Cloudflare
Intended status: Informational                              1 March 2026
Expires: 2 September 2026

                          MoQ CDN Provisioning
                 draft-englishm-moq-cdn-provisioning-00

Abstract

   This document describes concepts related to provisioning MoQ relay
   scopes on CDN infrastructure, including scope creation, credential-
   to-scope mapping, and origin fallback configuration.  It uses a
   provisioning API as a vehicle for describing these concepts and
   identifying areas where common semantics across CDN providers may be
   needed for multi-CDN compatibility.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   The latest revision of this draft can be found at
   https://englishm.github.io/moq-cdn-provisioning/draft-englishm-moq-
   cdn-provisioning.html.  Status information for this document may be
   found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-englishm-moq-cdn-
   provisioning/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Media Over QUIC
   Working Group mailing list (mailto:moq@ietf.org), which is archived
   at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/moq/.  Subscribe at
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/moq/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/englishm/moq-cdn-provisioning.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

English                 Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                moq-cdn-prov                    March 2026

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 September 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Scope Provisioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Connecting to a Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Origin Fallback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   Media over QUIC Transport (MoQT) [MOQT] defines a pub/sub protocol
   for media delivery through relays.  CDN providers that deploy MoQ
   relays need to configure them in ways that are roughly analogous to
   the rewrite rules, origin selection, and routing configuration
   associated with HTTP reverse proxies and CDNs.  Some of these
   configurations will need common semantics across providers to support
   multi-CDN deployments.

English                 Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                moq-cdn-prov                    March 2026

   This document uses a provisioning API as a vehicle for describing
   these concepts.  A customer creates a scope on a CDN relay, gets back
   connection credentials, and hands those credentials to their
   publishers and subscribers.  The relay uses the credentials to map
   incoming connections to the right scope.

   The API itself is part of the picture, but the more important
   contribution here is describing the underlying concepts (scopes,
   credential-to-scope mapping, origin fallback) in a way that could be
   consistent across CDN providers.

   A machine-readable OpenAPI description of the API described here is
   maintained alongside this document in the source repository (see
   openapi.yaml).

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Scope:  An isolated MoQ delivery context on a relay, as defined in
      [MOQT].  All namespaces and tracks within a scope are isolated
      from other scopes on the same relay.  A scope is the resource
      created by the provisioning API.

3.  Scope Provisioning

   A CDN provider exposes an HTTP API endpoint for creating scopes:

   POST /moq/scopes

   The request MAY include configuration (see Section 5).

   The response includes a server-generated scope identifier and
   connection credentials:

   {
     "scope_id": "a1b2c3d4e5f6",
     "url": "moqt://relay.example.com",
     "token": "eyJhbGciOiJFZDI1NTE5..."
   }

   The url is the base URL of the relay service.  The token is a
   credential that grants access to this scope.

English                 Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                moq-cdn-prov                    March 2026

4.  Connecting to a Scope

   Clients connect to a provisioned scope by combining the URL and token
   returned at creation time:

   moqt://relay.example.com/{token}

   The relay extracts the token from the URL path, validates it, and
   maps the connection to the corresponding MoQT scope.

   Within that scope, all MoQT operations (SUBSCRIBE, ANNOUNCE, etc.)
   are isolated.  Publishers and subscribers in one scope cannot see
   namespaces or tracks from another scope.

5.  Origin Fallback

   A scope MAY be configured with an upstream origin URL.  When a
   subscriber requests content that isn't available on the relay, the
   relay connects to the origin to fetch it.

   This is configured at provisioning time:

   {
     "config": {
       "origin_fallback": {
         "url": "moqt://origin.example.com"
       }
     }
   }

   The relay establishes a MoQT connection to the origin URL and
   forwards the subscription.  The origin could be another relay (at a
   different CDN provider, or a customer's own infrastructure), or any
   MoQT-speaking endpoint.

6.  Security Considerations

   TODO

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

8.  Normative References

English                 Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                moq-cdn-prov                    March 2026

   [MOQT]     Nandakumar, S., Vasiliev, V., Swett, I., and A. Frindell,
              "Media over QUIC Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-moq-transport-16, 13 January 2026,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-moq-
              transport-16>.

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

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Lucas Pardue and Jacob Curtis for design input.

Author's Address

   Mike English
   Cloudflare
   Email: ietf@englishm.net

English                 Expires 2 September 2026                [Page 5]