ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

Candidate re-charter/new WG

2000-11-03 13:04:20
Now that we appear to have gotten to the end of the WREC work items (there will be a new version of the Known Problems document - just changing the order of things as an outcome of the Pittsburgh meeting - submitted in the next few days), we need to decide how to move on.

Below is a candidate (re)charter to take WREC forward as the "Web Infrastructure" group (thanks to those who have given input of their varying types). As you'll see, the idea is to take on two work items that we believe are essential for web infrastructure going forward.

There is some cross over with the invalidation protocol with the CDNP folks. Since such a protocol is applicable to both areas, and since the CDNP folks look to have plenty of other interesting things to work on, WREC/WEBI appears to be a good place to work on this essential issue.

Likewise, there is some degree of cross over with the intermediary discovery protocol. In order to have some hope of moving away from interception proxy environments, we need to help user agents find intermediates (proxies, extensible proxies, surrogates). Given that this is an area where two proposed WGs (CDNP, OPES) would also have an interest, and since it doesn't appear to be directly in scope for either, we feel that WREC/WEBI is the best place for this.

Why the name change? As (caching) proxies and surrogates become essential components in the web infrastructure we need to examine interactions between these systems. "Web Replication and Caching" doesn't seem a sufficiently descriptive group name. There also appears to be a general feeling of WREC=bad (and the name when spoken doesn't help any) that we'd like to try and move away from.

At present it's not totally clear whether we should be going direct to a working group in San Diego, or whether we should go through a BoF stage to discuss the area and determine whether the group is necessary (and if not where the work items should be handled).

Apologies for the short notice, but obviously we need to get an idea of what we're doing in time to request a meeting in San Diego. Truncating the distribution to the WREC list (the "webi" list has *not* been set up yet) would probably be a good idea. (I'd set a Reply-To but I don't know how to drive that part of my mail agent ;-) )

Comments please!


--------------------------->8-------------------------------------------

Web Infrastructure (webi)

Co-chairs:
   Mark Nottingham <mnot(_at_)akamai(_dot_)com>
   Ian Cooper <icooper(_at_)equinix(_dot_)com>

Mailing Lists: [TENTATIVE]
   General Discussion: webi(_at_)equinix(_dot_)com
   To Subscribe: webi-request(_at_)equinix(_dot_)com
   Archive: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/webi

Description of Working Group:

This working group will address specific issues identified by the WREC working group in the world wide web infrastructure, providing generic mechanisms which are useful in several application domains (proxies, content delivery surrogates).

Work items for this group will be:

1) An invalidation protocol to provide a strong cache coherence mechanism
   while avoiding the latency penalty of validation, usable in proxy as well
   as surrogate configurations.

2) An intermediate service discovery mechanism, consisting of:

  a) An intermediary service description format, which describes what
     services an intermediary or arbitrary group of intermediaries is
     willing to provide, and

  b) A discovery protocol for locating relevant service descriptions within
     a single administrative domain.

  Both components will take into consideration current practice, related
  work in the IETF, and a reasoned set of requirements, which will include
  the need to provide a reasonable alternative to interception proxies.

Service discovery, and other issues pertaining to coordination between multiple administrative domains are explicitly out of scope of this group.

Protocols associated with the provisioning of value added services, including the vectoring of adaptation requests to other devices, is also out of scope for this group.


Goals and Milestones:

Feb 01: Requirements document for intermediary discovery and description
Feb 01: First draft invalidation protocol
Mar 01: Meet at Minneapolis IETF
Apr 01: First draft intermediary discovery protocol
Jul 01: First draft intermediary description mechanism
Aug 01: Meet at London IETF
Dec 01: Invalidation protocol finalized
Dec 01: Salt Lake City
Jan 02: Intermediary discovery protocol finalized
Mar 02: Intermediary description mechanism finalized
Apr 02: Re-charter


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>