Our interest in OPES and the interest of the folks we are working with
are not with services such as unrequested ad insertion or other items that
might be viewed as offensive.
I've already invited you guys to provide some justification for OPES.
So far I've heard only hand-waving. Merely having useful applications
for OPES is not sufficient; you also have the burden of explaining why
these applications justify destroying the end-to-end model along with
the various consequences of that design choice.
In fact, I don't doubt that there are some useful applications for OPES,
but there is tremendous potential for harm. The OPES proponents seem to
want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that this potential does
not exist. It doesn't really matter whether this is due to ignorance,
naivete, or malice. The bottom line is that the activity proposed for this
group is very dangerous. Mere hand-waving about the dangers - especially
from a presumed leader of the group - doesn't inspire confidence that the
group can be trusted to act with foresight or responsibly.
Although you have made many comments on the charter as well
as your thoughts during the open area applications meeting I have not
seen you at the OPES BOFs or OPES workshops.
IETF is a large organization, and there are lots of things going on.
If you have diverse interests, you have to concentrate your activity in
areas where it will be likely to be useful.
There seemed to be little utility in my attending OPES BOFs or workshops
in my previous experience, the OPES proponents had little or no understanding
of protocol design issues (including such fundamental concepts as layering)
and little or no ability to assess the consequences of their design choices.
We plan to have a '"Deployment Scenarios" document
that describes a range of applications and constructive comments from
you would be appreciated.
Then it seems entirely appropriate to delay any action on the OPES charter
this document is complete and has been reviewed by the community. After all,
the justification for the working group should come before the group is formed,
Offensive services can be done at the server end of things as well, such
as ad-insertion; so the edge architecture is not the issue.
You're entirely missing the point. If a content-provider wants to be
offensive, whether by inserting offensive ads or making the content itself
offensive, that's between the provider and any audience the provider might
attract. Creating a mechanism for which unauthorized third parties can
change that content, whether to change the level of offsense or for some
other purpose, breaks that relationship between content-providers and their
We have recorded your key point that is doing modifications on the content
without the permission of the "ends" (client and server) of the operation.
OPES is quite clear about this requirement.
Then why isn't it in the charter?
So, I would like to distinguish "Keith offensive services" regardless
of where there are done from the architecture being discussed
under the proposed OPES working group.
So what you're arguing is that having third parties corrupt the data path
between the endpoints is only an issue for me? Get over it.
Such arguments don't do anything for either OPES or your reputation.