Internet DRAFT - draft-ryan-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions
draft-ryan-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions
Network Working Group A. Ryan
Internet-Draft Disney Streaming
Updates: 8006, 8008 (if approved) B. Rosenblum
Intended status: Standards Track Vecima
Expires: 4 September 2022 N. Sopher
Qwilt
3 March 2022
CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Extensions
draft-ryan-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-02
Abstract
Open Caching architecture is a use case of Content Delivery Networks
Interconnection (CDNI) in which the commercial Content Delivery
Network (CDN) is the upstream CDN (uCDN) and the ISP caching layer
serves as the downstream CDN (dCDN). This document supplements to
the CDNI Capability Objects defined in RFC 8008 the defined
capability objects structure and interface for advertisments and
managment of a downstream CDN capacity.
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/.
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 4 September 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
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
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. CDNI Additonal Capability Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Telemetry Capability Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Telemetry Source Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1.1. Telemetry Source Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1.2. Telemetry Source Metric Object . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.2. Telemetry Capability Object Serialization . . . . . . 8
2.2. CapacityLimits Capability Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1. Capacity Limit Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1.1. Capacity Limit Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1.2. Capacity Limit Telemetry Source Object . . . . . 11
2.2.1.3. Capacity Limit Scope Object . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.2. Capacity Limit Object Serialization . . . . . . . . . 13
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1. CDNI Payload Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.1. CDNI FCI Telemetry Payload Type . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.2. CDNI FCI Capacity Limits Payload Type . . . . . . . . 15
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The Streaming Video Alliance [SVA] is a global association that works
to solve streaming video challenges in an effort to improve end-user
experience and adoption. The Open Caching Working Group [OCWG] of
the Streaming Video Alliance [SVA] is focused on the delegation of
video delivery requests from commerical CDNs to a caching layer at
the ISP's network. Open Caching architecture is a specific use case
of CDNI where the commercial CDN is the upstream CDN (uCDN) and the
ISP caching layer is the downstream CDN (dCDN). While delegating
traffic from one CDN to the other, it is important to make sure that
an appropriate amount of traffic is delegated. In order to achive
that, the SVA Open Caching Capacity Insight Specification [OC-CII]
defines a feedback mechanism to inform the delegator how much traffic
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
is appropriate to delegate. The traffic level information provided
by that interface will be consumed by entities, such as the Open
Caching Request router [OC-RR], to help inform that entity's traffic
delegation decisions. This document defines and registers CDNI
Payload Types (as defined at section 7.1 of [RFC8006]). These
Payload types are used for Capability Objects added to those defined
at section 4 of [RFC8008], which are required for the Open Caching
Capacity Insights Interface [OC-CII].
For consistency with other CDNI documents this document follows the
CDNI convention of uCDN (upstream CDN) and dCDN (downstream CDN) to
represent the commercial CDN and ISP caching layer respectively.
This document registers two CDNI Payload Types (section 7.1 of
[RFC8006]) for the defined capability objects:
* Telemetry Payload Type: A payload type for the capability object
which defines supported telemetry sources, the metrics made
available by that source, and corresponding configuration
appropriate to the type of the source (host, port, protocol,
etc..).
* CapacityLimits Payload Type: a payload type for the capability
object which defines Capacity Limits based on a set of defined
limit types and a mapping from those limits to corresponding
telemetry sources for supporting real-time metrics.
1.1. Terminology
The following terms are used throughout this document:
* CDN - Content Delivery Network
Additionally, this document reuses the terminology defined in
[RFC6707], [RFC7336], [RFC8006], [RFC8007], [RFC8008], and [RFC8804].
Specifically, we use the following CDNI acronyms:
* uCDN, dCDN - Upstream CDN and Downstream CDN respectively (see
[RFC7336] )
1.2. Requirements Language
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.
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
1.3. Objectives
In order to enable information exchange between a uCDN and a dCDN
about acceptable levels of traffic to delegate, the following process
has been defined:
In normal operation a uCDN will communicate with a dCDN, via an
interface, to collect and understand any limits that a dCDN has set
forth for traffic delegation from a uCDN. These limits will come in
the form of metrics such as bits per second, requests per second,
etc.. These limits can be thought of as Not to Exceed (NTE) limits.
The dCDN should provide access to a telemetry source, of near real
time metrics, that the uCDN can use to track current usage. The uCDN
should compare it's current usage to the limits the dCDN has put
forth and adjust traffic delegation decisions accordingly to keep
current usage under the specified limits.
In summary, the dCDN will provide the uCDN of limits of how much
traffic it should delegate towards the dCDN and then also provide a
telemetry source that is coupled to the same scope as the limit, so
that the uCDN can use to track its current usage against the
advertised limit. Having a limit and a corresponding telemetry
source for that limit allows for a non ambiguous definition of what a
particular limit means for both the uCDN and dCDN.
Limits that are communicated from the dCDN to the uCDN should be
considered valid based on the TTL of the response. The TTL of the
response will be provided by the transport mechanism for the response
i.e. an HTTP Cache-Control header. The intention is that the limits
would have a long lived TTL and would represent a reasonable peak
utilization limit that the uCDN should target.
In the event that a dCDN needs to inform a uCDN of an update to a
previously communicated limit, the dCDN SHOULD be able to leverage a
uCDN callback endpoint to inform the uCDN of adjusted limits. The
most common use case for this would be related to dCDN infrastructure
issues which reduced the amount of capacity previously advertised as
being available.
2. CDNI Additonal Capability Objects
Section 5 of [RFC8008] describes the FCI Capability Advertisement
Object, which contains a CDNI Capability Object as well as the
capability object type (a CDNI Paylod Type). The section also
defines the Capability Objects per such type. Below we define two
additional Capability Objects.
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
Note: In the following sections, the term "mandatory-to-specify" is
used to convey which properties MUST be included when serializing a
given capability object. When mandatory-to-specify is defined as
"Yes" for an individual property, it means that if the object
containing that property is included in an FCI message, then the
mandatory-to-specify property MUST also be included.
2.1. Telemetry Capability Object
The Telemetry Capability Object is used to define a list of telemetry
sources made available by the dCDN to the uCDN. In this document,
Telemetry data is being defined as near real time aggregated metics
of dCDN utilization, such as bits per second egress, and should be
specific to the uCDN and dCDN traffic delegation relationship.
Telemetry data is uniqiely defined by a source id, a metrics name,
along with the footprints that are associated with an FCI.Capability
advertisement. When defining a Capacity Limit, the meaning of a
limit might be considered ambiguous if the uCDN and dCDN are defining
current usage via different data sources. Having the dCDN provide a
data source defining usage that both itself and the uCDN reference,
allows a non ambiguous metric to use when determing current usage and
how that compares to a limit Telemetry data is not only an important
component for making informed traffic delegation decisions but also
for providing visiblity to traffic that has been delegated back
through to upstream providers. In situations where there are mutiple
CDNi delegations, a uCDN will need to incorporate the usage
information from any dCDN's it delegated to when itself is asked to
provide usage information otherwise, the traffic may seem unaccounted
for. An example of this situation is when a Content Provider
delegates traffic directly to a CDN, and that CDN decides to further
delegate that traffic to a dCDN, if the Content Provider polls the
uCDN for traffic usage, if the uCDN does not integrate the Telemetry
data of the dCDN it delegated to, any of the traffic the uCDN
delegated to it's dCDN would become invisible to the Content
Provider.
Property: sources
Description: Telemetry sources made available to the uCDN.
Type: A JSON array of Telemetry Source objects (see
Section 2.1.1).
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
2.1.1. Telemetry Source Object
The Telemetry Source Object is built of an associated type, a list of
exposed metrics, and type-specific configuration data.
Property: id
Description: A unique identifier of a telemetry source.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: type
Description: A valid telemetry source type. See
Section 2.1.1.1.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: metrics
Description: The metrics exposed by this source.
Type: A JSON array of Telemetry Source Metric objects (see
Section 2.1.1.2).
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: configuration
Description: a source-specific representation of the Telemetry
source configuration. For the generic source type, this
configuration format is defined out-of-band. For other types,
the configuration format will be specified in a yet to be
defined Telemetry Interface specification. The goal of this
element is to allow for forward compatability with a formal
Telemetry interface.
Type: A JSON object: TBD
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
2.1.1.1. Telemetry Source Types
Below are the listed valid telemetry source types. At the time of
this draft, the type registry is limit to a single type of Generic.
The intention of this type registry is to allow for future extension
to reference a yet to be drafted specification for a CDNI Telemetry
interface, which would standardize the definition, format,etc of
Telemetry data between participants of a CDNI workflow.
+=============+======================================+
| Source Type | Description |
+=============+======================================+
| generic | An object which allows for |
| | advertisement of generic datasources |
+-------------+--------------------------------------+
Table 1
2.1.1.2. Telemetry Source Metric Object
The Telemetry Source Metric Object describe the metric to be exposed.
Property: name
Description: An identifier unique within this telemetry source.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: time-granularity
Description: Represents the time frame that the data represents
in seconds. I.e. is this a data set over 5 minutes, one hour,
etc..
Type: Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: data-percentile
Description: The percentile calculation the data represents,
i.e. 50 percentile would equate to the median over the time-
granularity. Lack of a data-percentile will mean that the data
is the average over the time representation.
Type: Integer.
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: latency
Description: Time in seconds that the data is behind of real
time. This is important to specify to help the uCDN to
understand how long it might take to reflect traffic
adjustments in the metrics.
Type: Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
2.1.2. Telemetry Capability Object Serialization
The following shows an example of Telemetry Capability including 2
metrics for a source, that is scoped to a footprint.
"capabilities": [
{
"capability-type": "FCI.Telemetry",
"capability-value": {
"sources": [
{
"id": "capacity_metrics_region1",
"type": "generic",
"metrics": [
{
"name": "egress_5m",
"time-granularity": 300,
"data-percentile": 50,
"latency": 1500
},
{
"name": "requests_5m",
...
}
]
}
]
},
"footprints": [
<footprint objects>
]
}
]
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
2.2. CapacityLimits Capability Object
The Capacity Limits Capability Object enables the dCDN to specify
traffic delegation limits to a uCDN within an FCI.Capabilities
advertisement. The limits specified by the dCDN will inform the uCDN
on how much traffic can be delegated to the dCDN. The limits
specified by the dCDN should be considered Not To Exceed (NTE)
limits. The limits should be based on near real time telemetry data
that the dCDN provides to the uCDN, or in other words, for each limit
that is advertised, there should also exist a telemetry source which
provides data of current utilization against the particular
advertised limit.
Property: limits
Description: A collection of Capacity Limit objects.
Type: A JSON array of CapacityLimit objects (see
Section 2.2.1).
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
2.2.1. Capacity Limit Object
A CapacityLimit object is used to represent traffic limits for
delegation from the uCDN towards the dCDN. By default the limit
object will be scoped to the footprint associated with the FCI
capability advertisement encompassing this object. The limit object
can contain an optional scoping parameter which will allow
specification of a limit for a subset of the encompassing footprint.
Limits will be considered using a logical AND, such that a uCDN will
need to ensure that all the limits are considered and honored rather
than choosing the most specific only. There SHOULD be at least one
limit object without an optional scope per capability-value which
will define the overall limit for the footprint.
Property: scope
Description: Defines an additional scope requirement for a
limit within the FCI footprint context. This CAN be specified
if a dCDN would like to specify a more granular limit than what
is currently possible via an FCI footprint alone. An example
of using the optional scope would be to specify a limit that
should be applied to a specific published hostname within a
particular FCI foorprint. A limit object that does not contain
this optional scope, should be considered to apply to the
entire encompassing footprint associated with the capability
advertisement
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
Type: Capacity Limit Scope object (see Section 2.2.1.3).
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: limit-type
Description: The units of maximum-hard and maximum-soft.
Type: String. One of the values listed in Section 2.2.1.1.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: id
Description: Specifies a unique identifier associated with a
limit. The is CAN be used as a relational identifier to a
specific Section 2.2.1.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: maximum-hard
Description: The maximum unit of capacity that is available for
use.
Type: Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: maximum-soft
Description: A soft limit at which an upstream should consider
deducing traffic to prevent hitting the hard limit.
Type: Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: current
Description: Specifies the current usage value of the limit.
It is not recommended to specify the current usage value inline
with the FCI.CapacityLimits advertisements as it will reduce
the ability to cache the response. The intended method for
providing telemetry data is to reference a Section 2.2.1.2 to
poll for the current usage.
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
Type: Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: telemetry-source
Description: Mapping of each a particular limit to a specific
metric with relevant real-time data provided by a telemetry
source.
Type: Capacity Limit Telemetry Source object (see
Section 2.2.1.2).
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
2.2.1.1. Capacity Limit Types
Below are listed the valid capacity limit types. Additional limits
would need to be specified and extended into this list. The values
specified here represent the types that were identified as being the
most relevant metrics for the purposes of traffic delegation between
CDNs.
+=================+=====================+
| Limit Type | Units |
+=================+=====================+
| egress | Bits per second |
+-----------------+---------------------+
| requests | Requests per second |
+-----------------+---------------------+
| storage-size | Total bytes |
+-----------------+---------------------+
| storage-objects | Count |
+-----------------+---------------------+
| sessions | Count |
+-----------------+---------------------+
| cache-size | Total bytes |
+-----------------+---------------------+
Table 2
2.2.1.2. Capacity Limit Telemetry Source Object
The Capacity Limit Telemetry Source Object refers to a specific
metric within a Telementry Source.
Property: id
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
Description: Reference to the "id" of a telemetry source
defined by a Telemetry Capability object.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: metric
Description: Reference to the "name" property of a metric
defined within a telemetry source of an FCI.Telemetry
Capability object.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
2.2.1.3. Capacity Limit Scope Object
A CapacityLimitScope object is used to define a more granular scope
for a limit within the encompassing footprint. The object will
define what type of scope is being declared (published host, service
ids, etc..) and will then contain an array of items of the type
defined (publishedhostA.cdn.com, publishedhostB.cdn.com,..). The
scope types are meant to be extendible and reference already
established identifiers commonly used in delivery via a CDN. The
scope types MUST be mutually understood between the uCDN and dCDN.
Property: type
Description: Defines the type of scope definition.
Type: String. One of the values listed in Section 2.2.1.3.1.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: values
Description: A collection of values of Section 2.2.1.3.1.
Type: A JSON array of strings of (see Section 2.2.1.3.1).
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
2.2.1.3.1. Capacity Limit Scope Types
Below are listed the valid capacity limit types. Additional limits
would need to be specified and extended into this list. The values
specified here represent the types that were identified as being the
most relevant metrics for the purposes of traffic delegation between
CDNs. The most recognized value will be the published-host, while
the other values listed correspond to identifiers commonly used with
commercial CDN providers that either reference a specific
configuration or a logical grouping of configurations.
+================+===============================+
| Scope Type | Description |
+================+===============================+
| published-host | CDN-Domain |
+----------------+-------------------------------+
| service-id | an identifier associated with |
| | a group of configurations |
+----------------+-------------------------------+
| property-id | an identifier associated with |
| | a specific configuration |
+----------------+-------------------------------+
Table 3
2.2.2. Capacity Limit Object Serialization
The following shows an example of an FCI.CapacityLimits object.
"capabilities":[
{
"capability-type":"FCI.CapacityLimits",
"capability-value":{
"limits":[
{
"id":"capacity_limit_region1",
"limit-type":"egress",
"maximum-hard":50000000000,
"maximum-soft":25000000000,
"telemetry-source":{
"id":"capacity_metrics_region1",
"metric":"egress_5m"
}
},
{
"id":"capacity_limit_region1",
"scope":{
"type":"published-host",
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
"values":[
"serviceA.cdn.example.com"
]
},
"limit-type":"egress",
"maximum-hard":20000000000,
"maximum-soft":10000000000,
"telemetry-source":{
"id":"capacity_metrics_region1",
"metric":"egress_service2_5m"
}
},
{
"scope":{
"type":"service-id",
"Values":[
"abcd4567ef9a"
]
},
"limit-type":"egress",
"maximum-hard":30000000000,
"maximum-soft":15000000000,
"current":20000000000,
"telemetry-source":{
"id":"capacity_metrics_region3",
"metric":"egress_service3_5m"
}
}
]
},
"footprints":[
"<footprint objects>"
]
}
]
3. IANA Considerations
3.1. CDNI Payload Types
similar to the type definitions described in section 7.1 of [RFC8006]
as well as the types described in section 6.1 of [RFC8008].
This document requests the registration of the two additional payload
types:
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
+====================+===============+
| Payload Type | Specification |
+====================+===============+
| FCI.Telemetry | RFCthis |
+--------------------+---------------+
| FCI.CapacityLimits | RFCthis |
+--------------------+---------------+
Table 4
[RFC Editor: Please replace RFCthis with the published RFC number for
this document.]
3.1.1. CDNI FCI Telemetry Payload Type
Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to list the supported
telemetry sources and the metrics made available by each source).
Interface: FCI.
Encoding: See section Section 2.1.
3.1.2. CDNI FCI Capacity Limits Payload Type
Purpose: The purpose of this Payload Type is to define Capacity
Limits based on a utilization metrics corresponding to telemetry
sources provided by the dCDN.
Interface: FCI.
Encoding: See section Section 2.2.
4. Security Considerations
This specification is in accordance with the CDNI Request Routing:
Footprint and Capabilities Semantics. As such, it is subject to the
security and privacy considerations as defined in Section 8 of
[RFC8006] and in Section 7 of [RFC8008] respectively.
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to TBD for TBD
(their guidance / contribution / reviews ...)
6. References
6.1. Normative References
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
[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/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8006] Niven-Jenkins, B., Murray, R., Caulfield, M., and K. Ma,
"Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI)
Metadata", RFC 8006, DOI 10.17487/RFC8006, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8006>.
[RFC8007] Murray, R. and B. Niven-Jenkins, "Content Delivery Network
Interconnection (CDNI) Control Interface / Triggers",
RFC 8007, DOI 10.17487/RFC8007, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8007>.
[RFC8008] Seedorf, J., Peterson, J., Previdi, S., van Brandenburg,
R., and K. Ma, "Content Delivery Network Interconnection
(CDNI) Request Routing: Footprint and Capabilities
Semantics", RFC 8008, DOI 10.17487/RFC8008, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8008>.
[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/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8804] Finkelman, O. and S. Mishra, "Content Delivery Network
Interconnection (CDNI) Request Routing Extensions",
RFC 8804, DOI 10.17487/RFC8804, September 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8804>.
6.2. Informative References
[OC-CII] Ryan, A., Ed., Rosenblum, B., Goldstein, G., Roskin, R.,
and G. Bichot, "Open Caching Capacity Insights -
Functional Specification (Placeholder before
publication)",
<https://www.streamingvideoalliance.org/books/open-cache-
capacity-insights-functional-specification/>.
[OC-RR] Finkelman, O., Ed., Hofmann, J., Klein, E., Mishra, S.,
Ma, K., Sahar, D., and B. Zurat, "Open Caching Request
Routing - Functional Specification", Version 1.1, 4
October 2019,
<https://www.streamingvideoalliance.org/books/open-cache-
request-routing-functional-specification/>.
[OCWG] "Open Caching Home Page",
<https://opencaching.streamingvideoalliance.org/>.
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft CDNI Capacity Capability Advertisment Ex March 2022
[RFC6707] Niven-Jenkins, B., Le Faucheur, F., and N. Bitar, "Content
Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Problem
Statement", RFC 6707, DOI 10.17487/RFC6707, September
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6707>.
[RFC7336] Peterson, L., Davie, B., and R. van Brandenburg, Ed.,
"Framework for Content Distribution Network
Interconnection (CDNI)", RFC 7336, DOI 10.17487/RFC7336,
August 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7336>.
[SVA] "Streaming Video Alliance Home Page",
<https://www.streamingvideoalliance.org>.
Authors' Addresses
Andrew Ryan
Disney Streaming
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York
, NY 10036
United States of America
Email: andrew@andrewnryan.com
Ben Rosenblum
Vecima
4375 River Green Pkwy #100
Duluth
, GA 30096
United States of America
Email: ben@rosenblum.dev
Nir B. Sopher
Qwilt
6, Ha'harash
Hod HaSharon
4524079
Israel
Email: nir@apache.org
Ryan, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 17]
