Re: Is CDI dead?
"Mario" <[email protected]> Thu, 3 Apr 2003 11:35:05 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.cdi |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0141_01C2F9D5.12C84420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RE: Is CDI dead?I would like to benefit from this sudden surge of activity on this mailing list and quickly ask if somebody knows about any vendor selling surrogates/middleware able to do encryption and watermarking on the fly??? (hope i'm not too off-topic, otherwise apologies) Thanks for any hint. -Mario ----- Original Message ----- From: jayasurya venugopalan To: Mark Day ; Elisa Turrini ; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:03 Subject: RE: Is CDI dead? With ref to this extract from you rmail: The reality of CDI is that we've gone from having "lots of CDN operators, many interested in interoperation" to having "very few CDN operators, all focused on survival". You can't make progress on standardization efforts when the stakeholders are unwilling or unable to participate. I agree with you in toto. I personally feel that the cost of CDN hardware like the Content Engine or Switch is quite expensive for the times we are in now. Not that we need Content Networking less , actually there is a greater need for really fast access of high bandwidth consuming multimedia converged content. Solutions like Justin Chapweske's Tornado Web Raid CDN which is essentially an intelligent peer to peer solution based on an intelligent content gateway inside the corporate net, and intelligent "onion peers", merits attention for a solution for today for fast access of content rich media. I refer you to : http://onionnetworks.com for information and comments re Justin's solution. With Rgds jayasurya -----Original Message----- From: Mark Day [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thu 4/3/2003 12:21 PM To: Elisa Turrini; [email protected] Cc: Subject: RE: Is CDI dead? I think it's important to distinguish a working group from an interest group. No-one is saying that CDI is an uninteresting topic. Many of us expect that the subject will once again attract a sufficient level of attention in the future to warrant standardization efforts. But the IETF does not charter working groups based on "2 or 3" people who want to comment on things. And a working group that has reached the point of being defended on the basis that there might still be a few people who want to talk about things is basically not functioning as a working group any more. There are many interesting things that are not standardized. (And there are many things standardized that are not very interesting!) It's important to keep track of what kind of group you're dealing with and what kind of work is to be done there. The reality of CDI is that we've gone from having "lots of CDN operators, many interested in interoperation" to having "very few CDN operators, all focused on survival". You can't make progress on standardization efforts when the stakeholders are unwilling or unable to participate. --Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Elisa Turrini > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: 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>[email protected] and ask to have the alternate > address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are > automatically accepted. ] > > On 18-03-2003 23:28, "jayasurya venugopalan" <[email protected]> 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. > > I agree with you. > > I wrote two short papers about CDI and I am still investigating the CDI > issues. > > You can find the papers at: > http://www.cs.unibo.it/~turrini/PAPERS/ > > Comments are welcome. > > Regards, > > Elisa > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_0141_01C2F9D5.12C84420 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: Is CDI dead?</TITLE> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY dir=3Dltr bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3D"=EF=BC=AD=EF=BC=B3 = =EF=BC=B0=E3=82=B4=E3=82=B7=E3=83=83=E3=82=AF" size=3D2>I would like to = benefit from this sudden surge=20 of activity on this mailing list and quickly ask if somebody knows about = any=20 vendor selling surrogates/middleware able to do encryption and = watermarking on=20 the fly??? (hope i'm not too off-topic, otherwise = apologies)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"=EF=BC=AD=EF=BC=B3 = =EF=BC=B0=E3=82=B4=E3=82=B7=E3=83=83=E3=82=AF" = size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"=EF=BC=AD=EF=BC=B3 = =EF=BC=B0=E3=82=B4=E3=82=B7=E3=83=83=E3=82=AF" size=3D2>Thanks for any = hint.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"=EF=BC=AD=EF=BC=B3 = =EF=BC=B0=E3=82=B4=E3=82=B7=E3=83=83=E3=82=AF" = size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"=EF=BC=AD=EF=BC=B3 = =EF=BC=B0=E3=82=B4=E3=82=B7=E3=83=83=E3=82=AF" = size=3D2>-Mario</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"=EF=BC=AD=EF=BC=B3 = =EF=BC=B0=E3=82=B4=E3=82=B7=E3=83=83=E3=82=AF" = size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: = black"><B>From:</B>=20 <A [email protected] = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">jayasurya=20 venugopalan</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A = [email protected]=20 href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Mark Day</A> ; <A = [email protected]=20 href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">Elisa Turrini</A> ; <A=20 [email protected] = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>=20 </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A = [email protected]=20 href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A> = </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 03, 2003=20 11:03</DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Is CDI dead?</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV>With ref to this extract from you rmail:</DIV> <DIV> <FONT size=3D2>The reality of CDI is that we've gone from=20 having<BR>"lots of CDN operators, many interested in interoperation" = to having=20 "very<BR>few CDN operators, all focused on survival". You can't = make=20 progress on<BR>standardization efforts when the stakeholders are = unwilling or=20 unable to<BR>participate.</FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV> I agree with you in toto.</DIV> <DIV> I personally feel that the cost of CDN hardware like = the=20 Content Engine or Switch is quite expensive for the times we are in = now.</DIV> <DIV> Not that we need Content Networking less , actually there = is a=20 greater need for really fast access of high bandwidth consuming = multimedia=20 converged content.</DIV> <DIV> Solutions like Justin Chapweske's Tornado Web Raid CDN = which is=20 essentially an intelligent peer to peer solution based on an = intelligent=20 content gateway inside the corporate net, and intelligent "onion = peers",=20 merits attention for a solution for today for fast access of content = rich=20 media.</DIV> <DIV> I refer you to :</DIV> <DIV> <A=20 href=3D"http://onionnetworks.com">http://onionnetworks.com</A></DIV> <DIV>for information and comments re Justin's solution.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>With Rgds</DIV> <DIV>jayasurya</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><FONT size=3D2>-----Original Message----- <BR><B>From:</B> Mark = Day=20 [mailto:[email protected]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thu 4/3/2003 12:21 PM=20 <BR><B>To:</B> Elisa Turrini; [email protected] <BR><B>Cc:</B>=20 <BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Is CDI dead?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <P><FONT size=3D2>I think it's important to distinguish a working = group from=20 an interest<BR>group.<BR><BR>No-one is saying that CDI is an = uninteresting=20 topic. Many of us expect that<BR>the subject will once again = attract a=20 sufficient level of attention in the<BR>future to warrant = standardization=20 efforts. But the IETF does not charter<BR>working groups based on "2 = or 3"=20 people who want to comment on things. And<BR>a working group = that has=20 reached the point of being defended on the basis<BR>that there might = still=20 be a few people who want to talk about things is<BR>basically not=20 functioning as a working group any more.<BR><BR>There are many = interesting=20 things that are not standardized. (And there are<BR>many things = standardized=20 that are not very interesting!) It's important to<BR>keep = track of=20 what kind of group you're dealing with and what kind of work<BR>is = to be=20 done there. The reality of CDI is that we've gone from = having<BR>"lots=20 of CDN operators, many interested in interoperation" to having = "very<BR>few=20 CDN operators, all focused on survival". You can't make = progress=20 on<BR>standardization efforts when the stakeholders are unwilling or = unable=20 to<BR>participate.<BR><BR>--Mark<BR><BR><BR>> -----Original=20 Message-----<BR>> From: [email protected] [<A=20 = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">mailto:[email protected]</A>]= On=20 Behalf Of<BR>> Elisa Turrini<BR>> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, = 2003=20 10:39 AM<BR>> To: [email protected]<BR>> Subject: Re: Is CDI=20 dead?<BR>><BR>><BR>> [ post by non-subscriber. with = the=20 massive amount of spam, it is<BR>> easy to = miss<BR>> and=20 therefore delete posts by non-subscribers. if you wish to=20 regularly<BR>> post from an address that is not = subscribed to=20 this mailing list, send a<BR>> message to=20 <listname>[email protected] and ask to have the=20 alternate<BR>> address added to the list of addresses = from=20 which submissions are<BR>> automatically accepted.=20 ]<BR>><BR>> On 18-03-2003 23:28, "jayasurya venugopalan"=20 <[email protected]> wrote:<BR>><BR>> > Hi,<BR>> = > I=20 feel if even only 2or 3 of us are interested we should carry = on.<BR>>=20 > Some of us may not be in a postion to actively contribute = but<BR>>=20 we could well<BR>> > observe and comment.<BR>><BR>> I = agree with=20 you.<BR>><BR>> I wrote two short papers about CDI and I am = still=20 investigating the CDI<BR>> issues.<BR>><BR>> You can find = the=20 papers at:<BR>> <A=20 = href=3D"http://www.cs.unibo.it/~turrini/PAPERS/">http://www.cs.unibo.it/~= turrini/PAPERS/</A><BR>><BR>>=20 Comments are welcome.<BR>><BR>> Regards,<BR>><BR>>=20 = Elisa<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR><BR><BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>= </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0141_01C2F9D5.12C84420--