ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-beck-opes-psrl-00.txt

2000-12-05 09:30:06
Dave Reynolds wrote:
Traditionally the access provider doesn't do any semantic modification and is
transparent to the content owner. Introducing substantial, configurable, 
content
modification capabilities in the access network is new and it may be that 
content
owners won't be fully happy with the possibilities unless they have at least 
the
option of some control (business level or technical).

I agree that this could lead to conflicts between content providers and
access providers. I can think of one good example where access providers
might want to modify the content in their own interest: ISPs offering
free Internet service may want to insert their own advertisements into
requested Web pages (in addition to the content provider's ads, e.g. in
a separate frame).

The sort of thing I am thinking of here is the access provider offering 
service
modules which I want to invoke in my rule set, implicitly or explicitly. When 
the
service is directly encapsulated as a single proxylet there is no 
interleaving of
rules. However, a complex service might be implemented as a set of cooperating
proxylets tied together by a rule set. I would like to be able to invoke that 
set
of proxylets as a single logical package within my client rule set, reusing 
the
service provider's rule set for that function.

I see your point. To support this we could introduce references in rule
modules that point to sets of rules contained in some sort of "rule set
library" on the proxy. I agree, however, that this is probably something
that can wait until we have gained some more experience with simple rule
modules.

-Andre