Content Delivery Networks Interconnection
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Ryan
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9808 Disney Streaming
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track B. Rosenblum
Expires: 15 June 2025
ISSN: 2070-1721 Vecima
N. Sopher
Qwilt
12 December 2024
CDNI
June 2025
Content Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Capacity Capability
Advertisement Extensions
draft-ietf-cdni-capacity-insights-extensions-12
Abstract
The Content Delivery Networks Network Interconnection (CDNI) Capacity
Capability Advertisement Extensions define a set of additional
Capability Objects that provide information about current downstream
CDN (dCDN) utilization and specified usage limits to the delegating
upstream CDN (uCDN) in order to inform traffic delegation decisions.
This document supplements the CDNI Capability Objects, defined in RFC
8008 as part of the Footprints Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement Interface
(FCI), with two additional Capability Objects: FCI.CapacityLimits and
FCI.Telemetry.
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 an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 15 June 2025.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9808.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 2025 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)
(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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. CDNI Additional Capability Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Telemetry Capability Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Telemetry Source Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1.1. Telemetry Source Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1.2. Telemetry Source Metric Object . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2. Telemetry Capability Object Serialization . . . . . . 7
2.2. CapacityLimits Capability Object . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1. CapacityLimit Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1.1. CapacityLimit Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.1.2. CapacityLimitTelemetrySource Object . . . . . . . 11
2.2.2. CapacityLimit Object Serialization . . . . . . . . . 11
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. CDNI Payload Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.1. CDNI FCI Telemetry Payload Type . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.2. CDNI FCI Capacity Limits Payload Type . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. "CDNI CDNI Telemetry Source Types" Types Registry . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.1. CDNI Generic Telemetry Source Type . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. "CDNI CDNI Capacity Limit Types" Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2.
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
While delegating traffic from an upstream CDN (uCDN) to a downstream
CDN (dCDN), it is important to ensure that an appropriate amount of
traffic is delegated. To achieve that, this specification defines a
feedback mechanism to inform the delegator how much traffic may be
delegated. The traffic level information provided by that interface
will be consumed by services, such as a request router, to inform
that service's traffic delegation decisions. The provided
information is advisory and does not represent a guarantee,
commitment, or reservation of capacity.
This document defines and registers CDNI Payload Types (as defined at
section in
Section 7.1 of [RFC8006]). These Payload types are used for
Capability Objects Objects, which are added to those defined at section in Section 4 of
[RFC8008].
1.1. Terminology
The following terms are term is used throughout this document:
* CDN -
CDN: Content Delivery Network
Additionally, this document reuses the terminology defined in
[RFC6707]. Specifically, we use the following CDNI acronyms:
* uCDN, dCDN - Upstream acronyms are used:
uCDN: upstream CDN
dCDN: downstream CDN and Downstream CDN, respectively
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.
1.3. Objectives
To enable information exchange between a uCDN and a dCDN regarding
acceptable levels of traffic delegation, the following process has
been defined:
In normal operation 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 its 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 inform the uCDN of the amount of traffic
that may be delegated. Additionally, it will provide a telemetry
source aligned with this limit, allowing the uCDN to monitor its
current usage against the advertised value. Having a limit and a
corresponding telemetry source creates an unambiguous definition
understood by both parties.
Limits that are communicated from the dCDN to the uCDN should be
considered valid based on the TTL (Time To Live) Time to Live (TTL) provided by a
mechanism of the underlying transport, e.g., 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. If the underlying transport does not provide a
mechanism for the dCDN to communicate the TTL of the limits, the TTL
should be communicated through an out-of-band mechanism agrred agreed upon
between the dCDN and uCDN.
2. CDNI Additional 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 Payload Type). The section also
defines the Capability Objects per such type. Below, we define two
additional Capability Objects.
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 a
"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 be included.
2.1. Telemetry Capability Object
The Telemetry Capability Object advertises a list of telemetry
sources made available to the uCDN by the dCDN. In this document,
telemetry data is being defined as near real-time aggregated metrics
of dCDN utilization, such as bits per second egress, and is specific
to the uCDN and dCDN traffic delegation relationship.
Telemetry data is uniquely defined by a source ID, a metric name, and
the footprints that are associated with an FCI.Capability
advertisement. When defining a CapacityLimit, the meaning of a limit
might be ambiguous if the uCDN and dCDN are observing telemetry via
different data sources. A dCDN-provided telemetry source that both
parties reference serves as a non-ambiguous metric for use when
comparing current usage to a limit.
Telemetry data is important for making informed traffic delegation
decisions. Additionally, it is essential in providing visibility of
traffic that has been delegated. In situations where there are
multiple CDN delegations, a uCDN will need to aggregate the usage
information from any dCDNs to which it delegated when asked to
provide usage information, otherwise the traffic may seem unaccounted
for.
Example: A Content Provider delegates traffic directly to a uCDN, and
that uCDN delegates that traffic to a dCDN. When the Content
Provider polls the uCDN telemetry interface, any of the traffic the
uCDN delegated to the dCDN would become invisible to the Content
Provider
Provider, unless the uCDN aggregates the dCDN telemetry with its own
metrics.
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.
2.1.1. Telemetry Source Object
The Telemetry Source Object is built made of an associated type, a list of
exposed metrics, and type-specific configuration data.
Property: id
Description: An identifier of a telemetry source. The ID string
assigned to this Telemetry Source MUST be unique across all
Telemetry Source objects in the advertisement containining containing this
Telemetry Source Object. The ID string MUST remain consistent
for the same source reference across advertisements.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: type
Description: A valid telemetry source type. See type (see Section 2.1.1.1. 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 as out-of-band. For other
types, the configuration format will be specified in a yet to be
defined yet-to-
be-defined telemetry interface specification. The goal of this
element is to allow for forward compatibility with a formal
telemetry interface.
Type: A JSON object, the structure of which is specific to the
Telemetry Source and outside the scope of this document.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
2.1.1.1. Telemetry Source Types
At the time of this writing, the registry of valid Telemetry Source
Object types
Types is limited to a single type: Generic generic (see Section 3.2.1).
+=============+=======================================+
| Source Type | Description |
+=============+=======================================+
| generic | An object which that allows for |
| | advertisement of generic data sources |
+-------------+---------------------------------------+
Table 1
2.1.1.2. Telemetry Source Metric Object
The Telemetry Source Metric Object describes the metric to be
exposed.
Property: name
Description: An identifier for this metric. This name MUST be
unique among metric objects within the containing Telemetry
Source. The name MUST remain consistent for the same source
reference across advertisements.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: time-granularity
Description: The time, in seconds, representing the metric data.
For example, a value representing the last 5 minutes would have
a time-granularity of 300.
Type: Unsigned 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 indicates that the data
MUST be the mean over the time representation.
Type: Unsigned Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: latency
Description: Time in seconds that the data is behind real-time.
This is important to specify to help the uCDN understand how
long it might take to reflect traffic adjustments in the
metrics.
Type: Unsigned Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
2.1.2. Telemetry Capability Object Serialization
The following shows an example of Telemetry Capability including two
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>
]
}
]
}
2.2. CapacityLimits Capability Object
The CapacityLimits 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 may be delegated to the dCDN. The limits
specified by the dCDN should be considered Not To Exceed (NTE) NTE limits. The limits
should be based on near real-time telemetry data that the dCDN
provides to the uCDN. In other words, for each limit that is
advertised, there should also exist a telemetry source which that provides
current utilization data against the particular advertised limit.
Property: limits
Description: A collection of CapacityLimit objects.
Type: A JSON array of CapacityLimit objects (see Section 2.2.1).
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
2.2.1. CapacityLimit Object
A CapacityLimit object is used to represent traffic limits for
delegation from the uCDN towards the dCDN. The limit object is
scoped to the footprint associated with the FCI capability
advertisement encompassing this object. Limits MUST be considered
using a logical "AND": a A uCDN will need to ensure that all limits are
considered rather than choosing only the most specific.
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 an identifier associated with a limit.
This MAY be used as a relational identifier to a specific
CapacityLimit Object. If specified, this identifier MUST be
unique among specified identifiers associated with any other
CapacityLimit objects in the advertisement containing this
CapacityLimit Object.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: maximum-hard
Description: The maximum unit of capacity that is available for
use.
Type: Unsigned Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: maximum-soft
Description: A soft limit at which a uCDN SHOULD reduce traffic
before hitting the hard limit. This value MUST be less than
the value of maximum-hard. If this value is not specified, it
is equal to the value of maximum-hard.
Type: Unsigned 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, but this mechanism exists
for simple use cases where an external telemetry source cannot
be feasibly implemented. The intended method for providing
telemetry data is to reference a Telemetry Source object (see
Section 2.1.1) to poll for the current usage.
Type: Unsigned Integer.
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
Property: telemetry-source
Description: Mapping The mapping of each particular limit to a specific
metric with relevant real-time data provided by a telemetry
source.
Type: CapacityLimitTelemetrySource object (see Section 2.2.1.2).
Mandatory-to-Specify: No.
2.2.1.1. CapacityLimit Types
Below are listed the valid capacity limit-types registered in the
CDNI
"CDNI Capacity Limit Types Types" registry. The values specified here
represent the types that were identified as being the most relevant
metrics for the purposes of traffic delegation between CDNs.
+=================+=====================+
+=====================+=====================+
| Capacity 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. CapacityLimitTelemetrySource Object
The CapacityLimitTelemetrySource Object refers to a specific metric
within a Telemetry Source.
Property: id
Description: Reference to the "id" of a telemetry source defined
by a Telemetry Capability object as defined in Section 2.1.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
Property: metric
Description: Reference to the "name" property of a metric defined
within a telemetry source of a Telemetry Capability object.
Type: String.
Mandatory-to-Specify: Yes.
2.2.2. CapacityLimit 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"
}
}
]
},
"footprints":[
"<footprint objects>"
]
}
]
}
3. IANA Considerations
3.1. CDNI Payload Types
This document requests the registration of
Per this document, IANA has registered two additional payload types to
in the Content "CDNI Payload Types" registry within the "Content Delivery
Network Interconnection (CDNI)
Parameters "CDNI Payload Types" registry:
+====================+===============+ Parameters" registry group:
+====================+===========+
| Payload Type | Specification Reference |
+====================+===============+
+====================+===========+
| FCI.Telemetry | RFCthis RFC 9808 |
+--------------------+---------------+
+--------------------+-----------+
| FCI.CapacityLimits | RFCthis RFC 9808 |
+--------------------+---------------+
+--------------------+-----------+
Table 3
[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 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 utilization metrics corresponding to telemetry
sources provided by the dCDN.
Interface: FCI.
Encoding: See Section 2.2.
3.2. "CDNI CDNI Telemetry Source Types" Types Registry
IANA will add has added the following new registry to within the "Content
Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Parameters" registry group at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/cdni-parameters:
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cdni-parameters>:
Registry Name: CDNI Telemetry Source Types
Registry Description: The CDNI "CDNI Telemetry Source Types Types" registry
defines the valid values for the "type" property of the Telemetry
Source object defined in Section 2.1.1.
Registration Procedure: The registry follows the Specification
Required policy as defined in [RFC8126]. The Designated Expert designated expert
should consider the following guidelines when evaluating
registration requests:
* The new type definition does not duplicate existing types.
* The review should verify that the telemetry source is
applicable to the CDNI use cases and that the description is
clear and unambiguous.
* The registration is applicable for general use and is not
proprietary.
* The "configuration" property has a fully specified object
definition with a description of each defined property.
The following values will be value has been registered:
+=============+===============+
+=============+===========+
| Source Type | Specification Reference |
+=============+===============+
+=============+===========+
| generic | RFCthis RFC 9808 |
+-------------+---------------+
+-------------+-----------+
Table 4
3.2.1. CDNI Generic Telemetry Source Type
Purpose: The purpose of this Telemetry Source Type is to provide a
source-agnostic telemetry type that may be used for generic
telemetry source advertisement.
Usage: See Section 2.1.1.
3.3. "CDNI CDNI Capacity Limit Types" Types Registry
IANA will add has added the following new registry to within the "Content
Delivery Network Interconnection (CDNI) Parameters" registry group at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/cdni-parameters:
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cdni-parameters>:
Registry Name: CDNI Capacity Limit Types
Registry Description: The CDNI "CDNI Capacity Limit Types Types" registry
defines the valid values of the "limit-type" property of a
CapacityLimit object defined in Section 2.2.1.
Registration Procedure: The registry follows the Specification
Required policy as defined in [RFC8126]. The Designated Expert designated expert
should consider the following guidelines when evaluating
registration requests:
* The new capacity limit type does not duplicate existing
entries.
* The submission has a defined purpose. The newly defined
capacity limit type should be clearly justified in the context
of one or more CDNI use cases.
* The description of the capacity limit type is well-documented
and unambiguous.
The following values will be have been registered:
+=====================+=====================+===============+
+=====================+=====================+===========+
| Capacity Limit Type | Units | Specification Reference |
+=====================+=====================+===============+
+=====================+=====================+===========+
| egress | Bits per second | RFCthis RFC 9808 |
+---------------------+---------------------+---------------+
+---------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| requests | Requests per second | RFCthis RFC 9808 |
+---------------------+---------------------+---------------+
+---------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| storage-size | Total bytes | RFCthis RFC 9808 |
+---------------------+---------------------+---------------+
+---------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| storage-objects | Count | RFCthis RFC 9808 |
+---------------------+---------------------+---------------+
+---------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| sessions | Count | RFCthis RFC 9808 |
+---------------------+---------------------+---------------+
+---------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| cache-size | Total bytes | RFCthis RFC 9808 |
+---------------------+---------------------+---------------+
+---------------------+---------------------+-----------+
Table 5
Usage: See Section 2.2.1.1.
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 7 of
[RFC8008].
5. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the members of
the Streaming Video Technology Alliance [SVTA] Open Caching Working
Group for their guidance, contribution, and review.
6. References
6.1.
5.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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>.
6.2.
5.2. 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.svta.org/document/open-
caching-capacity-interface/>.
[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.svta.org/product/open-cache-
request-routing-functional-specification/>.
[OCWG] "Open Caching Home Page", <https://opencaching.svta.org/>.
[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>.
[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>.
[SVTA] "Streaming Video Technology Alliance Home Page",
<https://www.svta.org>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the members of
the Streaming Video Technology Alliance [SVTA] Open Caching Working
Group for their guidance, contribution, and review.
Authors' Addresses
Andrew Ryan
Disney Streaming
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York
, York, NY 10036
United States of America
Email: andrew@andrewnryan.com
Ben Rosenblum
Vecima
4375 River Green Pkwy #100
Duluth
,
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