Re: OPES Ownership

With regard to these policy issues I suspect there
are some things to be worked out between MidCom,
WEBI, CDI, and OPES. This discussion started here -
we can cross it to other groups if you like.

At 04:28 PM 2/2/2001 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> I'm trying to get a feel for the intent and bounds of OPES; I've
> heard some discussion of allowing clients to interpose a processing
> module into an intermediary, and there seem to be some people
> interested in developing a trust model.
>
> In your last mail on this thread, you stated:
> > In summary, the rule modules and proxylets would only flow through
> > a path with established trust relationship in place first.
>
> I haven't been making that assumption. Once the OPES framework is
> established, there is no mechanism to enforce that trust model. It's
> nice to say that OPES deliverables will only be used in a "nice" way,
> but I don't know that it's meaningful. While people will always do
> bad things like intercept and modify messages in the network, it's
> quite another thing to standardize a framework which encourages this
> without addressing these concerns.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 01:25:15PM -0800, Yang, Lily L wrote:
> > Mark --
> > At the client's side, I don't envision any end user would actually have to
> > deal with the OPES framework -- his/her desire to use services such as 
> virus
> > scanning, filtering, translation, adaptation, etc would be honored by his
> > access provider on his behalf. So the access provider would generate and/or
> > load the relevant rule modules and proxylets on the clients' behalf 
> onto the
> > OPES boxes. With that in mind, I guess I don't quite follow what you meant
> > here by "integration into the client"? Could you elaborate?
> > Also the knowledge about how to act on behalf of the client does not reside
> > on the content provider in this case -- it should reside with the access
> > provider, already in the OPES box or its Admin box.
> >
> > I probably completely misunderstood your point here. Maybe you can provide
> > some more clarificaiton?
> >
> > Lily
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot(_at_)akamai(_dot_)com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:05 PM
> > To: Erickson, Rob
> > Cc: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
> > Subject: Re: OPES Ownership
> >
> > ... (omitted)
> >
> > There is an equivalent model between the client and their access
> > provider, through their terms of service/employment (as the case may
> > be). However, while CDNs are developing mechanisms to allow content
> > providers to control how their objects are served, developing such
> > controls for client->access providers is much more difficult.
> >
> > This is not only because it requires integration into the client --
> > which alone makes it a difficult issue. It also requires insight into
> > the semantics of messages -- both requests and responses -- to make
> > reasonable decisions about how to act. Unfortunately, this knowledge
> > resides at the content provider. URIs are explicitly opaque; current
> > systems which derive object characteristics from them are extremely
> > limited, and arguably limit the functionality and extensibility of
> > the Web.
> >
> > ... (omitted)
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
> > Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
> Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology