Content Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Requirements
draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-17
Yes
(Spencer Dawkins)
No Objection
(Barry Leiba)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -13)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-30 for -14)
Unknown
Thanks for the discussions and the changes to address my Discuss
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-13 for -14)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS. - 1.1. Terminology This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC6707] as well as in section 1.1 of Framework for CDN Interconnection [I-D.ietf-cdni-framework]. Can you either the following sentence In this document, as in [RFC6707], the first letter of each term in the terminology section is capitalized. Alternatively, include the terms used in this document. The A, B, C, D,terms, used in this document are defined in [RFC6707]. For example, I was confused by the User Agent, user agent, user-agent, until I realized that User Agent is actually a definition from RFC 6707
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-16 for -15)
Unknown
After discussion with both Transport ADs, they've convinced me that this requirement is about the CDN having the ability to deliver via HTTP to the UA - not that the requirements are on the UA-CDN interconnection. I'll leave it to the authors/ADs to decide whether any updates to the draft are required based on that.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-28 for -16)
Unknown
--- old comments - Please define "sign" as you intend it to be used and distinguish between digital signatures (e.g. generated with an RSA private key) and MACing. Being vague on that in these requirements may lead to pain later on, e.g. if you realise that you need to add (or protect) some key management gunk too late in the day. - FCI-5: RTMP needs a reference - SEC-*: The term non-repudiation seems meaningless here (as usual;-). But I think I recall that CDNI has its own definition for that - in which case you really would be better to include or refer to that.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -13)
Unknown