RE: Is CDI dead?
"jayasurya venugopalan" <[email protected]> Fri, 4 Apr 2003 04:48:11 +0530
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.cdi |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3DWindows-1252"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 6.0.6249.1"> <TITLE>RE: Is CDI dead?</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <!-- Converted from text/plain format --> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I apologize if my mail appeared to do advertising.<BR> It was my honest intention to point out that there are intelligent = peer to peer solutions which achieve the objective of fast multimedia = content access which are available at much much cheaper prices as = compared to the hardware necessary in hardware based solutions from many = of the vendors.<BR> If as you say there are very few CDN operators now it is simply = because they do not get much return for the investment they have to put = in for costly hardware.<BR> Definitely there is a growing untapped market for content delivery = and we would be only blinding ourselve if we continue to look the same = way for solutions.<BR> jayasurya<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> -----Original Message-----<BR> From: Mark Day [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:[email protected]">mailto:[email protected]</A>]<BR> Sent: Thu 4/3/2003 6:21 PM<BR> To: jayasurya venugopalan; Elisa Turrini; = [email protected]<BR> Cc: [email protected]<BR> Subject: RE: Is CDI dead?<BR> <BR> RE: Is CDI dead?I am not happy about having this mailing list used for = product advertisements. Please don't pursue this any further.<BR> <BR> I don't try to sell my company's products to this WG, and I'd like = everyone else to do likewise.<BR> <BR> Thanks,<BR> <BR> --Mark<BR> -----Original Message-----<BR> From: [email protected] [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:[email protected]">mailto:[email protected]</A>]= On Behalf Of jayasurya venugopalan<BR> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:03 AM<BR> To: Mark Day; Elisa Turrini; [email protected]<BR> Cc: [email protected]<BR> Subject: RE: Is CDI dead?<BR> <BR> <BR> With ref to this extract from you rmail:<BR> The reality of CDI is that we've gone from having<BR> "lots of CDN operators, many interested in = interoperation" to having "very<BR> few CDN operators, all focused on survival". You can't = make progress on<BR> standardization efforts when the stakeholders are unwilling or = unable to<BR> participate.<BR> <BR> I agree with you in toto.<BR> 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.<BR> Not that we need Content Networking less , actually = there is a greater need for really fast access of high bandwidth = consuming multimedia converged content.<BR> 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.<BR> I refer you to :<BR> <A = HREF=3D"http://onionnetworks.com">http://onionnetworks.com</A><BR> for information and comments re Justin's solution.<BR> <BR> With Rgds<BR> jayasurya<BR> <BR> <BR> -----Original Message-----<BR> From: Mark Day [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:[email protected]">mailto:[email protected]</A>]<BR> Sent: Thu 4/3/2003 12:21 PM<BR> To: Elisa Turrini; [email protected]<BR> Cc:<BR> Subject: RE: Is CDI dead?<BR> <BR> <BR> I think it's important to distinguish a working group = from an interest<BR> group.<BR> <BR> No-one is saying that CDI is an uninteresting = topic. Many of us expect that<BR> the subject will once again attract a sufficient = level of attention in the<BR> future to warrant standardization efforts. But the = IETF does not charter<BR> working groups based on "2 or 3" people who = want to comment on things. And<BR> a working group that has reached the point of being = defended on the basis<BR> that there might still be a few people who want to = talk about things is<BR> basically not functioning as a working group any = more.<BR> <BR> There are many interesting things that are not = standardized. (And there are<BR> many things standardized that are not very = interesting!) It's important to<BR> keep track of what kind of group you're dealing with = and what kind of work<BR> is to be done there. The reality of CDI is that = we've gone from having<BR> "lots of CDN operators, many interested in = interoperation" to having "very<BR> few CDN operators, all focused on = survival". You can't make progress on<BR> standardization efforts when the stakeholders are = unwilling or unable to<BR> participate.<BR> <BR> --Mark<BR> <BR> <BR> > -----Original Message-----<BR> > From: [email protected] [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:[email protected]">mailto:[email protected]</A>]= On Behalf Of<BR> > Elisa Turrini<BR> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:39 AM<BR> > To: [email protected]<BR> > Subject: Re: Is CDI dead?<BR> ><BR> ><BR> > [ post by non-subscriber. with the massive = amount of spam, it is<BR> > easy to miss<BR> > and therefore delete posts by = non-subscribers. if you wish to regularly<BR> > post from an address that is not = subscribed to this mailing list, send a<BR> > message to = <listname>[email protected] and ask to have the alternate<BR> > address added to the list of = addresses from which submissions are<BR> > automatically accepted. ]<BR> ><BR> > On 18-03-2003 23:28, "jayasurya = venugopalan" <[email protected]> wrote:<BR> ><BR> > > Hi,<BR> > > I feel if even only 2or 3 of us are = interested we should carry on.<BR> > > Some of us may not be in a postion to = actively contribute but<BR> > we could well<BR> > > observe and comment.<BR> ><BR> > I agree with you.<BR> ><BR> > I wrote two short papers about CDI and I am = still investigating the CDI<BR> > issues.<BR> ><BR> > You can find the papers at:<BR> > <A = HREF=3D"http://www.cs.unibo.it/~turrini/PAPERS/">http://www.cs.unibo.it/~= turrini/PAPERS/</A><BR> ><BR> > Comments are welcome.<BR> ><BR> > Regards,<BR> ><BR> > Elisa<BR> ><BR> ><BR> ><BR> ><BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> </FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML>