RFC 3466 on A Model for Content Internetworking (CDI)

A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        RFC 3466

        Title:      A Model for Content Internetworking (CDI)
        Author(s):  M. Day, B. Cain, G. Tomlinson, P. Rzewski
        Status:     Informational
        Date:       February 2003
        Mailbox:    mday <at> alum.mit.edu, bcain <at> storigen.com,
                    gary <at> tomlinsongroup.net, philrz <at> yahoo.com
        Pages:      17
        Characters: 37684
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:    None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-cdi-model-02.txt

        URL:        ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3466.txt

Content (distribution) internetworking (CDI) is the technology for
interconnecting content networks, sometimes previously called
"content peering" or "CDN peering".  A common vocabulary helps the
process of discussing such interconnection and interoperation.  This
document introduces content networks and content internetworking, and
defines elements for such a common vocabulary.

This document is a product of the Content Distribution Internetworking
(cdi) Working Group of the IETF.

This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does

Is CDI dead?

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>-owner <at> ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

All,

Is CDI dead?  No activity and no interest leads me to believe the group 
is dead.  Mark
do you have any comments?

Michael

Is CDI dead?

> All,
>
> Is CDI dead?  No activity and no interest leads me to believe the 
> group is dead.  Mark
> do you have any comments?
>
> Michael

RE: Is CDI dead?

We do still have a couple of drafts (scenarios and known-mechanisms) that
could conceivably make it to RFC. But other than that, I would say that the
group is pretty inert and that the people who responded to my last query
overwhelmingly said that the WG should be wound down.

--Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Michael Speer
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 8:14 PM
> To: cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Is CDI dead?
>
>
> > All,
> >
> > Is CDI dead?  No activity and no interest leads me to believe the
> > group is dead.  Mark
> > do you have any comments?
> >
> > Michael
>
>
>

RE: Is CDI dead?

RE: Is CDI dead?

Re: Is CDI dead?

I think that's the problem.  No one is observing or commenting on the
drafts that *have* been submitted.

-Dave

On Wednesday, 19 Mar 2003, jayasurya venugopalan wrote:
> 
>    Hi,
>     I feel if even only 2or 3 of us are interested we should carry on.
>    Some of us may not be in a postion to actively contribute but we could
>    well observe and comment.
>    Rgds
>    jayasurya
>    -----Original Message-----
>    From:   Mark Day [[1]mailto:markday <at> cisco.com]
>    Sent:   Wed 3/19/2003 3:01 AM
>    To:     michael.speer <at> sun.com; cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
>    Cc:
>    Subject:        RE: Is CDI dead?
>    We do still have a couple of drafts (scenarios and known-mechanisms)
>    that
>    could conceivably make it to RFC. But other than that, I would say
>    that the
>    group is pretty inert and that the people who responded to my last
>    query
>    overwhelmingly said that the WG should be wound down.
>    --Mark
>    > -----Original Message-----
>    > From: owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org [[2]mailto:owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org]On
>    Behalf Of
>    > Michael Speer
>    > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 8:14 PM
>    > To: cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
>    > Subject: Is CDI dead?
>    >
>    >
>    > > All,
>    > >
>    > > Is CDI dead?  No activity and no interest leads me to believe the
>    > > group is dead.  Mark
>    > > do you have any comments?
>    > >
>    > > Michael
>    >
>    >
>    >
>    -----Original Message-----
>    From:   Mark Day [[3]mailto:markday <at> cisco.com]
>    Sent:   Wed 3/19/2003 3:01 AM
>    To:     michael.speer <at> sun.com; cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
>    Cc:
>    Subject:        RE: Is CDI dead?
>    We do still have a couple of drafts (scenarios and known-mechanisms)
>    that
>    could conceivably make it to RFC. But other than that, I would say
>    that the
>    group is pretty inert and that the people who responded to my last
>    query
>    overwhelmingly said that the WG should be wound down.
>    --Mark
>    > -----Original Message-----
>    > From: owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org [[4]mailto:owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org]On
>    Behalf Of
>    > Michael Speer
>    > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 8:14 PM
>    > To: cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
>    > Subject: Is CDI dead?
>    >
>    >
>    > > All,
>    > >
>    > > Is CDI dead?  No activity and no interest leads me to believe the
>    > > group is dead.  Mark
>    > > do you have any comments?
>    > >
>    > > Michael
>    >
>    >
>    >
> 
> References
> 
>    1. mailto:markday <at> cisco.com
>    2. mailto:owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org
>    3. mailto:markday <at> cisco.com
>    4. mailto:owner-cdn <at> ops.ietf.org

--

-- 
David Frascone

            We're lost, but we're making good time.