CDNI WG Minutes IETF-1112 Online Chairs: Kevin Ma and Sanjay Mishra AD: Francesca Palombini Agenda and Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/session/cdni Recording: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf112/recordings#CDNI Chair slides (Kevin J. Ma) -------------------------- Chris Lemmons: volunteered to jabber scribe Kevin: last call for adoption on draft-sopher-cdni-triggersextensions-rfc8007bis: no objections Kevin: call to add a milestone: no objections Nir: agreed to a target deadline of March 2022 Kevin: last call for adoption on draft-sopher-cdnifootprint-types-extensions: no objections Kevin: call to add a milestone: no objections Nir: agreed to a target deadline of March 2022 CDNI Footprints (Nir Sopher) ---------------------------- Nir: only update since July was to rename ISO3166-2Code to SubdivisionCode CDNI Triggers (Nir Sopher) -------------------------- Nir: no updates since July; wanted to complete adoption before proposing additional changes Nir: new proposal as discussed on the list: replace individual trigger properties with an array of generic trigger objects (a la generic metadata objects) Kevin: agreed that an array of generic objects makes more sense for extensibility Kevin: agreed with pushing the update to a working group draft and then pushing a new revision with the proposed changes to the trigger object CDNI URI Signing (Phil Sorber) ------------------------------ Phil: requested help on addition guidance for designated experts Kevin: offered to take a look Phil: three open questions to the WG (to be sent to the list as well after the meeting) Question 1: should we remove client IP? Andrew Ryan: noted valid use cases where client IP is useful; would rather keep it. Kevin: noted there are valid internal network use cases were the reason it was added. the known limitations of using client IP do not negate those use cases. Could add more disclaimers, would rather keep it. Chris: agreed client IP has valid use cases, but also noted that an array of IPs might be more useful (along with the ability to combine IPv4 and IPv6), but the change may not be warranted at this late stage. Question 2: should we remove shared key? Kevin: noted there are valid internal use cases as well as legacy compatibility reasons for supporting it. Chris: could just remove it. internal use cases do not need interop; and it is obvious how to do it if someone wanted to use shared keys. Question 3: should we make URI Container mandatory? Chris: noted a valid use case for multiple issuers. requiring inclusion of a wildcard URI Container is a waste of CPU on a regex that could otherwise be omitted. Chris: posted the PR for proposed text on path-style and form-style params Phil: wanted to get more WG feedback on Chris's text before merging it Kevin: to review Glenn Goldstein: asked about common access token CTA-WAVE/SVA compatibility Kevin/Phil: not familiar with the spec; will need to review Kevin: URI signing is not going to be compatible with all legacy algorithms, e.g., AWS signature v4 Kevin: URI signing was added to the December telechat agenda; when do we need to resolve questions by? Francesca Palombini: need to post updated draft by 11/25 to give ADs time to review; otherwise we can push it out to the next telechat. HTTPS Delegation (Frederic Fieau) --------------------------------- Kevin: posted comments on the new draft on the list; need to address before discussing last call Sanjay: agreed not ready for last call. the RFC9115 change could mean a lot of changes for how the dCDN handles delegation. Kevin: lets wait for and review the next version of the draft and then re-evaluate draft readiness Capacity Advertisement: (Andrew Ryan) ------------------------------------- Andrew: SVA wants to reuse the FCI interface for capacity advertisement Andrew: the long term goal is to define a near real time telemetry interface, but the short term goal is to describe generic telemetry sources. Andrew: there are existing telemetry interfaces in dCDNs that uCDNs need to access. Kevin: are the existing sources proprietary or using standard protocols? Andrew: it's mostly HTTP polling of bespoke interfaces with bespoke formats Kevin: the metrics are common even though interfaces are not yet standard? Andrew: the metrics are generally well understood. can create a registry for the metrics. but how they are calculated introduces ambiguity, so both the uCDN and dCDN must use the dCDN metrics Andrew: the FCI object allows advertising telemetry for an entire CDN or a specific host. Andrew: the MI only allows scoping to a host and not all hosts. Kevin: MI is not idea for this use case, but you tried to fit it into the existing MI? Andrew: agreed. the proposal is a middle ground to adhere to the available framework, but would welcome feedback or suggestions to work around it. CDNI Metadata (Glenn Goldstein) ------------------------------- Glenn: SVA wants to extend the MI to handle more use cases Glenn: All changes are implemented in new generic metadata objects Glenn: one issue is with service id. service id as a host metadata is backward. usually a CDN has a service id with multiple hosts under it. the MI does not support grouping hosts. Glenn/Alfonso: re: Kevin's comments on the list, origin caching rules are often different from CDN caching rules and the uCDN acts as an origin to the dCDN, so it is easier for the uCDN to specify different rules to the dCDN, rather than respond differently to a dCDN. Glenn: processing stages: processing can happened in four places (receiving a request from a client, forwarding a request to a uCDN, receiving a response from a uCDN, and serving a response to the client from cache). Glenn: processing may include transforming a request, transforming a response, or generating a synthetic response Glenn: were able to fit all of the processing stage configuration as generic metadata objects Kevin: impressive that it all fit into metadata. is this the right way, or just how it had to be to fit into the MI? Glenn: it fits and it's clean Glenn: SVA is extending the MI to support publish and delete Kevin: MI was originally designed for triggered invalidation. is SVA going to bring back the publish and delete proposals to the WG? Glenn: will discuss with Sanjay and the SVA Alfonso: the extensions are probably compatible with triggers. can start a discussion on the list. Glenn: additional extensions for lifecycle managment: versions, staging vs prod deployments, rollbacks, etc. Kevin: the draft is big. perhaps break it up into separate drafts grouping similar metadata to make it easier to digest with less context switching? could speed up adoption of more straightforward parts. Glenn: agreed with grouping relevant metadata together Sanjay: agreed with grouping relevant metadata together Session closed.