-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot(_at_)akamai(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 7:10 PM
To: Hilarie Orman
Cc: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: OPES Ownership
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 07:16:55PM -0700, Hilarie Orman wrote:
There's an implicit integrity model in the word "cache" that's
similar. Literally, caches don't modify content. But
caching is only
part of a proxy or a surrogate or a content service node.
I like to think of HTTP caching as a limited processing model
designed into the protocol.
There's a more complicated model for "proxies", I claim. They
provide integrity on parts of the content (data, payload, etc.),
but they have application-level responsibilities to protect,
enhance, and add value to content. I think there's
a legitimate question here, about what integrity guarantees
can be expected. And I think it's difficult, but may worthwhile,
to draw up some guidelines. Things such as
By default, content integrity is assured.
Maybe it would be better to say 'message' instead of 'content' (to
encompass both requests and responses)?
How is content integrity defined? Is this the default behavior where no
actions/services on the content are performed by the box? If an action
is performed, how will we validate integrity?
Refusal to deliver content is not modification
Is this policy based or are there other reasons for the OPES box to
deny delivery of content?