cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>]

Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?

At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good reason?

Cheers,
JvD

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>]

I think we should drop the ‘CCR profile’, but add a Delivery Service profile. We need parameters associated with a DS for sure. I say we also add a profile type that prevents cross-assigning profiles.

Rgds,
JvD

> On Jan 2, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Steve Malenfant <sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 to drop the profile from the delivery service.
> 
> As for multiple domain_name per CDN,does this mean also having Traffic Router support multiple TLDs? 
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
> @derek: we should probably take a look at what goes first; I think I have a good start on the profile / domain_name thing, so don’t start the work.
> 
> @jeremy (and others): I think I still like having a profile. Maybe we add a profile type as well? That would make it easy for us to implement checks against invalid assignment. I know we talked about getting rid of the the table in the future, but man, it’s so useful.
> 
> Cheers,
> JvD
> 
> 
> 
> > On Dec 27, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Gelinas, Derek <Derek_Gelinas@comcast.com <ma...@comcast.com>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 on this for me. I'll have a look at the config algorithms later and see what needs changing for this... I could roll it into the api/ort config changes.  Be a good time since we already have to rewrite most of those anyway for the scope usage in the api.
> >
> > Derek
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 27, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <mitchell852@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the
> >> deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a
> >> profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers (caches). In
> >> addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice, we
> >> introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR
> >> profile) which can cause issues for the CDN.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <mtorluemke@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in
> >>>> the future? Or is there another use case?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh in,
> >>> as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an
> >>> explicit request for it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Rgds,
> >>>> JvD
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mtorluemke@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
> >>>> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
> >>>> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
> >>>> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
> >>>> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
> >>>> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com <ma...@knutsel.com>
> >>>> <mailto:jvd@knutsel.com <ma...@knutsel.com>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice
> >>>> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
> >>>> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
> >>>> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
> >>>> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
> >>>> reason?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> JvD
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> 
> 

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Steve Malenfant <sm...@gmail.com>]

As far as I know (maybe I'm wrong), the DS parameters are added to each
"Server" Profiles (which is a problem when importing profile for example
and causes ORT issues). Is it really necessary to have a hdr_rw and others
parameters part of the profiles? They can't be generated from the DS table?

Jan, which parameters are you refering to?

Steve

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <
efriedri@cisco.com> wrote:

> I think having TR support multiple TLDs would be a great improvement.
>
> If we bring in a DS profile, would we be moving some of the DS settings
> from the big honkin' DS table into parameters instead?
>
> —Eric
>
> On Jan 2, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Steve Malenfant <sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 to drop the profile from the delivery service.
>
> As for multiple domain_name per CDN,does this mean also having Traffic
> Router support multiple TLDs?
>
> Steve
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com> wrote:
>
>> @derek: we should probably take a look at what goes first; I think I have
>> a good start on the profile / domain_name thing, so don’t start the work.
>>
>> @jeremy (and others): I think I still like having a profile. Maybe we add
>> a profile type as well? That would make it easy for us to implement checks
>> against invalid assignment. I know we talked about getting rid of the the
>> table in the future, but man, it’s so useful.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> JvD
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 27, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Gelinas, Derek <De...@comcast.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 on this for me. I'll have a look at the config algorithms later and
>> see what needs changing for this... I could roll it into the api/ort config
>> changes.  Be a good time since we already have to rewrite most of those
>> anyway for the scope usage in the api.
>> >
>> > Derek
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Dec 27, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <mi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the
>> >> deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a
>> >> profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers
>> (caches). In
>> >> addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice,
>> we
>> >> introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR
>> >> profile) which can cause issues for the CDN.
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <mtorluemke@apache.org
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN
>> in
>> >>>> the future? Or is there another use case?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh
>> in,
>> >>> as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an
>> >>> explicit request for it.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Rgds,
>> >>>> JvD
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
>> >>>> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice.
>> This was
>> >>>> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps
>> too late
>> >>>> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the
>> domain_name
>> >>>> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table
>> entirely,
>> >>>> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com
>> >>>> <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
>> >>>>> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a
>> deliveryservice
>> >>>> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile
>> column
>> >>>> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter
>> only
>> >>>> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if
>> this
>> >>>> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for
>> a good
>> >>>> reason?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>> JvD
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

["Eric Friedrich (efriedri)" <ef...@cisco.com>]

I think having TR support multiple TLDs would be a great improvement.

If we bring in a DS profile, would we be moving some of the DS settings from the big honkin' DS table into parameters instead?

—Eric

On Jan 2, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Steve Malenfant <sm...@gmail.com>> wrote:

+1 to drop the profile from the delivery service.

As for multiple domain_name per CDN,does this mean also having Traffic Router support multiple TLDs?

Steve

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
@derek: we should probably take a look at what goes first; I think I have a good start on the profile / domain_name thing, so don’t start the work.

@jeremy (and others): I think I still like having a profile. Maybe we add a profile type as well? That would make it easy for us to implement checks against invalid assignment. I know we talked about getting rid of the the table in the future, but man, it’s so useful.

Cheers,
JvD



> On Dec 27, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Gelinas, Derek <De...@comcast.com>> wrote:
>
> +1 on this for me. I'll have a look at the config algorithms later and see what needs changing for this... I could roll it into the api/ort config changes.  Be a good time since we already have to rewrite most of those anyway for the scope usage in the api.
>
> Derek
>
>
>> On Dec 27, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <mi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the
>> deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a
>> profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers (caches). In
>> addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice, we
>> introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR
>> profile) which can cause issues for the CDN.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in
>>>> the future? Or is there another use case?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh in,
>>> as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an
>>> explicit request for it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rgds,
>>>> JvD
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
>>>> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
>>>> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
>>>> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
>>>> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
>>>> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>
>>>> <ma...@knutsel.com>>> wrote:
>>>>> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice
>>>> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
>>>> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
>>>>>
>>>>> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
>>>> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
>>>> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
>>>> reason?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> JvD
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

["Eric Friedrich (efriedri)" <ef...@cisco.com>]

I think having TR support multiple TLDs would be a great improvement.

If we bring in a DS profile, would we be moving some of the DS settings from the big honkin' DS table into parameters instead?

—Eric

On Jan 2, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Steve Malenfant <sm...@gmail.com>> wrote:

+1 to drop the profile from the delivery service.

As for multiple domain_name per CDN,does this mean also having Traffic Router support multiple TLDs?

Steve

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
@derek: we should probably take a look at what goes first; I think I have a good start on the profile / domain_name thing, so don’t start the work.

@jeremy (and others): I think I still like having a profile. Maybe we add a profile type as well? That would make it easy for us to implement checks against invalid assignment. I know we talked about getting rid of the the table in the future, but man, it’s so useful.

Cheers,
JvD



> On Dec 27, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Gelinas, Derek <De...@comcast.com>> wrote:
>
> +1 on this for me. I'll have a look at the config algorithms later and see what needs changing for this... I could roll it into the api/ort config changes.  Be a good time since we already have to rewrite most of those anyway for the scope usage in the api.
>
> Derek
>
>
>> On Dec 27, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <mi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the
>> deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a
>> profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers (caches). In
>> addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice, we
>> introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR
>> profile) which can cause issues for the CDN.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in
>>>> the future? Or is there another use case?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh in,
>>> as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an
>>> explicit request for it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rgds,
>>>> JvD
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
>>>> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
>>>> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
>>>> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
>>>> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
>>>> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>
>>>> <ma...@knutsel.com>>> wrote:
>>>>> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice
>>>> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
>>>> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
>>>>>
>>>>> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
>>>> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
>>>> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
>>>> reason?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> JvD
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>]

I think we should drop the ‘CCR profile’, but add a Delivery Service profile. We need parameters associated with a DS for sure. I say we also add a profile type that prevents cross-assigning profiles.

Rgds,
JvD

> On Jan 2, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Steve Malenfant <sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 to drop the profile from the delivery service.
> 
> As for multiple domain_name per CDN,does this mean also having Traffic Router support multiple TLDs? 
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
> @derek: we should probably take a look at what goes first; I think I have a good start on the profile / domain_name thing, so don’t start the work.
> 
> @jeremy (and others): I think I still like having a profile. Maybe we add a profile type as well? That would make it easy for us to implement checks against invalid assignment. I know we talked about getting rid of the the table in the future, but man, it’s so useful.
> 
> Cheers,
> JvD
> 
> 
> 
> > On Dec 27, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Gelinas, Derek <Derek_Gelinas@comcast.com <ma...@comcast.com>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 on this for me. I'll have a look at the config algorithms later and see what needs changing for this... I could roll it into the api/ort config changes.  Be a good time since we already have to rewrite most of those anyway for the scope usage in the api.
> >
> > Derek
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 27, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <mitchell852@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the
> >> deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a
> >> profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers (caches). In
> >> addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice, we
> >> introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR
> >> profile) which can cause issues for the CDN.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <mtorluemke@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in
> >>>> the future? Or is there another use case?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh in,
> >>> as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an
> >>> explicit request for it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Rgds,
> >>>> JvD
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mtorluemke@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
> >>>> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
> >>>> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
> >>>> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
> >>>> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
> >>>> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com <ma...@knutsel.com>
> >>>> <mailto:jvd@knutsel.com <ma...@knutsel.com>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice
> >>>> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
> >>>> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
> >>>> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
> >>>> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
> >>>> reason?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> JvD
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> 
> 

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Steve Malenfant <sm...@gmail.com>]

+1 to drop the profile from the delivery service.

As for multiple domain_name per CDN,does this mean also having Traffic
Router support multiple TLDs?

Steve

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com> wrote:

> @derek: we should probably take a look at what goes first; I think I have
> a good start on the profile / domain_name thing, so don’t start the work.
>
> @jeremy (and others): I think I still like having a profile. Maybe we add
> a profile type as well? That would make it easy for us to implement checks
> against invalid assignment. I know we talked about getting rid of the the
> table in the future, but man, it’s so useful.
>
> Cheers,
> JvD
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Gelinas, Derek <De...@comcast.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 on this for me. I'll have a look at the config algorithms later and
> see what needs changing for this... I could roll it into the api/ort config
> changes.  Be a good time since we already have to rewrite most of those
> anyway for the scope usage in the api.
> >
> > Derek
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 27, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <mi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the
> >> deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a
> >> profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers (caches).
> In
> >> addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice,
> we
> >> introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR
> >> profile) which can cause issues for the CDN.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in
> >>>> the future? Or is there another use case?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh
> in,
> >>> as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an
> >>> explicit request for it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Rgds,
> >>>> JvD
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
> >>>> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice.
> This was
> >>>> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too
> late
> >>>> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the
> domain_name
> >>>> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table
> entirely,
> >>>> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com
> >>>> <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
> >>>>> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a
> deliveryservice
> >>>> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile
> column
> >>>> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter
> only
> >>>> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if
> this
> >>>> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a
> good
> >>>> reason?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> JvD
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Steve Malenfant <sm...@gmail.com>]

+1 to drop the profile from the delivery service.

As for multiple domain_name per CDN,does this mean also having Traffic
Router support multiple TLDs?

Steve

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com> wrote:

> @derek: we should probably take a look at what goes first; I think I have
> a good start on the profile / domain_name thing, so don’t start the work.
>
> @jeremy (and others): I think I still like having a profile. Maybe we add
> a profile type as well? That would make it easy for us to implement checks
> against invalid assignment. I know we talked about getting rid of the the
> table in the future, but man, it’s so useful.
>
> Cheers,
> JvD
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Gelinas, Derek <De...@comcast.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 on this for me. I'll have a look at the config algorithms later and
> see what needs changing for this... I could roll it into the api/ort config
> changes.  Be a good time since we already have to rewrite most of those
> anyway for the scope usage in the api.
> >
> > Derek
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 27, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <mi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the
> >> deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a
> >> profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers (caches).
> In
> >> addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice,
> we
> >> introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR
> >> profile) which can cause issues for the CDN.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in
> >>>> the future? Or is there another use case?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh
> in,
> >>> as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an
> >>> explicit request for it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Rgds,
> >>>> JvD
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
> >>>> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice.
> This was
> >>>> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too
> late
> >>>> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the
> domain_name
> >>>> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table
> entirely,
> >>>> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com
> >>>> <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
> >>>>> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a
> deliveryservice
> >>>> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile
> column
> >>>> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter
> only
> >>>> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if
> this
> >>>> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a
> good
> >>>> reason?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> JvD
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>]

@derek: we should probably take a look at what goes first; I think I have a good start on the profile / domain_name thing, so don’t start the work.

@jeremy (and others): I think I still like having a profile. Maybe we add a profile type as well? That would make it easy for us to implement checks against invalid assignment. I know we talked about getting rid of the the table in the future, but man, it’s so useful.

Cheers,
JvD


 
> On Dec 27, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Gelinas, Derek <De...@comcast.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 on this for me. I'll have a look at the config algorithms later and see what needs changing for this... I could roll it into the api/ort config changes.  Be a good time since we already have to rewrite most of those anyway for the scope usage in the api. 
> 
> Derek
> 
> 
>> On Dec 27, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the
>> deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a
>> profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers (caches). In
>> addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice, we
>> introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR
>> profile) which can cause issues for the CDN.
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in
>>>> the future? Or is there another use case?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh in,
>>> as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an
>>> explicit request for it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Rgds,
>>>> JvD
>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
>>>> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
>>>> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
>>>> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
>>>> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
>>>> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com
>>>> <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
>>>>> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice
>>>> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
>>>> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
>>>>> 
>>>>> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
>>>> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
>>>> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
>>>> reason?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> JvD
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>]

@derek: we should probably take a look at what goes first; I think I have a good start on the profile / domain_name thing, so don’t start the work.

@jeremy (and others): I think I still like having a profile. Maybe we add a profile type as well? That would make it easy for us to implement checks against invalid assignment. I know we talked about getting rid of the the table in the future, but man, it’s so useful.

Cheers,
JvD


 
> On Dec 27, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Gelinas, Derek <De...@comcast.com> wrote:
> 
> +1 on this for me. I'll have a look at the config algorithms later and see what needs changing for this... I could roll it into the api/ort config changes.  Be a good time since we already have to rewrite most of those anyway for the scope usage in the api. 
> 
> Derek
> 
> 
>> On Dec 27, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the
>> deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a
>> profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers (caches). In
>> addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice, we
>> introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR
>> profile) which can cause issues for the CDN.
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in
>>>> the future? Or is there another use case?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh in,
>>> as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an
>>> explicit request for it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Rgds,
>>>> JvD
>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
>>>> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
>>>> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
>>>> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
>>>> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
>>>> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com
>>>> <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
>>>>> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice
>>>> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
>>>> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
>>>>> 
>>>>> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
>>>> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
>>>> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
>>>> reason?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> JvD
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

["Gelinas, Derek" <De...@comcast.com>]

+1 on this for me. I'll have a look at the config algorithms later and see what needs changing for this... I could roll it into the api/ort config changes.  Be a good time since we already have to rewrite most of those anyway for the scope usage in the api. 

Derek


> On Dec 27, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the
> deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a
> profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers (caches). In
> addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice, we
> introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR
> profile) which can cause issues for the CDN.
> 
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>>> 
>>> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in
>>> the future? Or is there another use case?
>>> 
>>> 
>> That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh in,
>> as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an
>> explicit request for it.
>> 
>> 
>>> Rgds,
>>> JvD
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
>>> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
>>> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
>>> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
>>> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
>>> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com
>>> <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
>>>> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice
>>> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
>>> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
>>>> 
>>>> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
>>> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
>>> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
>>> reason?
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> JvD
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Jeremy Mitchell <mi...@gmail.com>]

I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the
deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a
profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers (caches). In
addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice, we
introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR
profile) which can cause issues for the CDN.

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
wrote:

>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com> wrote:
>
>> > or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>>
>> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in
>> the future? Or is there another use case?
>>
>>
> That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh in,
> as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an
> explicit request for it.
>
>
>> Rgds,
>> JvD
>>
>> > On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
>> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
>> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
>> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
>> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
>> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com
>> <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
>> > Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice
>> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
>> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
>> >
>> > At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
>> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
>> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
>> reason?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > JvD
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Jeremy Mitchell <mi...@gmail.com>]

I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the
deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a
profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers (caches). In
addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice, we
introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR
profile) which can cause issues for the CDN.

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
wrote:

>
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com> wrote:
>
>> > or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>>
>> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in
>> the future? Or is there another use case?
>>
>>
> That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh in,
> as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an
> explicit request for it.
>
>
>> Rgds,
>> JvD
>>
>> > On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
>> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
>> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
>> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
>> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
>> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com
>> <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
>> > Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice
>> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
>> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
>> >
>> > At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
>> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
>> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
>> reason?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > JvD
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com> wrote:

> > or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>
> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in the
> future? Or is there another use case?
>
>
That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh in, as
it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an explicit
request for it.


> Rgds,
> JvD
>
> > On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com <mailto:
> jvd@knutsel.com>> wrote:
> > Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice
> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
> >
> > At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
> reason?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > JvD
> >
> >
>
>

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com> wrote:

> > or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
>
> Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in the
> future? Or is there another use case?
>
>
That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh in, as
it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an explicit
request for it.


> Rgds,
> JvD
>
> > On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
> superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
> discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
> into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
> parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
> with a link to the 'cdn' table.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com <mailto:
> jvd@knutsel.com>> wrote:
> > Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice
> to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
> >
> > At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
> reason?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > JvD
> >
> >
>
>

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>]

> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.

Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in the future? Or is there another use case?

Rgds,
JvD

> On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
> 
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
> 
> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good reason?
> 
> Cheers,
> JvD
> 
> 

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com>]

> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.

Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in the future? Or is there another use case?

Rgds,
JvD

> On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table.
> 
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jvd@knutsel.com <ma...@knutsel.com>> wrote:
> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice to profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
> 
> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good reason?
> 
> Cheers,
> JvD
> 
> 

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>]

Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
with a link to the 'cdn' table.

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com> wrote:

> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice to
> profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
>
> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
> reason?
>
> Cheers,
> JvD
>
>

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

[Mark Torluemke <mt...@apache.org>]

Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is
superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was
discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late
into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name
parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely,
with a link to the 'cdn' table.

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <jv...@knutsel.com> wrote:

> Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice to
> profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column
> (CCR Profile) in deliveryservice?
>
> At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only
> (?), and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this
> was considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good
> reason?
>
> Cheers,
> JvD
>
>