Per-Entity Metadata Working Group

[Paul Caskey <>]

Well, there's the latency concern again.

It's not about HA; we don't need a CDN for HA.



-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Koranda []
Received: Tuesday, 06 Sep 2016, 6:32PM
To: Paul Caskey []
CC: David Walker []; []
Subject: Re: [Per-Entity] HTTPS transport and TLS trust

> To the extent that's true, then I would question the need
> for a CDN, as opposed to a normal highly-available
> infrastructure (which would be less expensive to operate).

I do want to phrase the report in terms of requirements and
let Ops have the freedom (which of course they have) to
implement a solution of their design that meets the
requirements.

But we can and I think should signal that a MDQ service
operated on top of a CDN is a strong candidate.

As someone else already pointed out more eloquently, the MDQ
protocol is simple and, I dare say, elegant. An implemenation for
InCommon will have to deliver the same small files (~8KB) to many
clients distributed across the country and around the world
over and over again. Files that sometimes change, but not too
often. With as much uptime and as little latency as can be
achieved in a cost effective way.

That sounds like a problem the rest of the internet has solved
(_javascript_, css, images) in cost effective ways using CDNs.

Scott K