I still cannot see why you keep insisting that the primary purpose
of OPES is abusive?
partially because, as far as I can tell, the biggest demand for an interface
like OPES is not for a service acting on behalf of an endpoint, but for an
intermediary that is acting without approval of either endpoint.
for example - if you really want to design a pluggable interface for use
by content providers or by the audience, then there's no need to presume
that the interface is layered on top of HTTP, and there are almost certainly
better choices than HTTP for that interface.
another reason I am concerned is because the charter is so open-ended
and vague, when there is obviously a tremendous potential for misuse.
another reason I am concerned is because of statements to the effect that
"we don't need to be concerned about how the protocol is used" when
there is so much potential for misuse.
no, I don't think the OPES people are deliberately bent on harm.
I do think they are likely to do a great deal of harm if they are
allowed to proceed on their current course.
Keith