Keith,
I accept what you're saying: if one is going to perform intermediary
services not authorized by the content provider, then one should not usurp
the normal client-to-server interface and obscure the original content.
But wouldn't it be alright to perform intermediary services that do usurp
the normal client-to-server interface as long as they are authorized by the
content provider? In this case the intermediary is serving as the agent of
the content provider, so it would seem that interposing between client and
server would be OK.
/micah
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: "Micah Beck" <mbeck(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
It is arguable that the client has the right to have whatever adpatation
they want performed on the content that they view. However, it enters
into
a troublesome area where we obscure what exactly is being provided by
the
content provider, although the identity of the content provider is still
used.
Micah,
It appears as if you're assuming that the OPES interface has to interpose
that adaptation between the provider and the audience, by usurping
the normal client-to-server interface and obscuring the original content -
probably by some sort of HTTP proxy. I don't think this is a reasonable
assumption, or a reasonable design constraint. In fact I would argue
that it is essential that the normal client-to-server interface not be
interfered with, precisely so that the audience has a choice - exposed
in his user interface - regarding whether to enable a particular
translation.
For this and several other reasons OPES should defintely NOT be based on
HTTP.
Keith