ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Some charter updates, comments?

2001-06-27 08:26:24
Thank you for your suggestion. Although there is much agreement
in concept in your point, there are many that
        1. Feel iCAP is useful
        2. Feel that it is necessary to have a concrete example
                to be considered for an IETF wg.
Since the charter does not say the WG is to standardize iCAP
I feel I must disagree that its inclusion as an example
callout protocol "spoils the charter"
At 08:44 AM 6/27/2001 -0500, Jayanth Mysore wrote:
Hi all,

In the interest of making a point that I believe is important, I am going to take the risk of potentially hurting someone. Please don't take it personally. My interest is in doing my part towards getting a WG
started.

Here's the comment, and it has been raised by many before :
The entire paragraph on iCAP "spoils" the spirit of the charter. Frankly, it gives the reader the opinion that, "These guys seem to want to create a working group with the sole intention of standardizing iCAP". I wish I am wrong, but in the interest of seeing the BoF burgeon into a WG, I think it is my duty to express this concern.

If iCAP is "after all" a candidate proposal, why should it feature in the charter ? The charter is supposed to be general in spirit, while staying narrow in focus. Talking about iCAP in the charter, IMHO, works against the
former.

Other (minor)  comments are inline.

cheers,
Jayanth

"Michael W. Condry (by way of Michael W. Condry )" wrote:
Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)

Co-chairs:
   Michael Condry <condry(_at_)intel(_dot_)com>
   Markus Hofmann <hofmann(_at_)lucent(_dot_)com>

Technical Team Lead:
   Hilarie Orman <horman(_at_)volera(_dot_)com>

Mailing Lists:
   General Discussion: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
   To Subscribe: ietf-openproxy-request(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
   Web: <http://www.ietf-opes.org>http://www.ietf-opes.org
Archive: <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/opes>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/opes

Description of Working Group:

The Internet is facilitating multiple forms of distributed applications,
some of which employ application-level intermediaries. The Open Pluggable
Edge Services (OPES) working group primary task is to define
application-level protocols enabling such intermediaries to incorporate
services that operate on messages transported by HTTP and RTP/RTSP At theIP level, the participating intermediaries are endpoints that are addressed explicitly.

The protocols to be defined provide a framework for integrating a wide
range of services into application-level intermediaries. The advantage of
standardizing such protocols is that services can be re-used across vendor
products without modifying the intermediaries or services.

Intermediary services provided in this way are not transparent: They have
to be authorized by either the content requestor or the content provider,
corresponding to whom the service is being provided for. A key task for the
working group is to specify an authorization mechanism in order for this to
happen.
Maybe we can say "authentication and authorization mechanism" instead of "authorization mechanism"
in the last line.


Intermediaries may employ services executed either locally or on a remote
("callout") server. One task for this working group is the development of
callout protocols that enable the exchange of HTTP-encapsulated, and
RTP/RTSP-encapsulated, messages between intermediaries and remote
("callout") servers.

Maybe I am understanding something wrong here, but the use of the term "encapsulated" misleads me....we are talkning about protocols that enable the exchange of HTTP and RTP/RTSP messages.
that need to be modified ...right ?

The iCAP protocol already provides similar functionality for services
operating on HTTP-encapsulated application data. The working group will
evaluate the iCAP protocol as one candidate for HTTP-encapsulated
application data. It may decide to extend the iCAP protocol without being
obliged to retain any level of compatibility with the current iCAP proposal.


This entire paragraph "spoils" the charter.

Another task for this working group is to enumerate the requirements for
management policies and associated administrative protocols that allow
these services to be specified and deployed. This includes requirements on
the rule systems used to specify conditions under which services are executed.

The working group will develop a security model for OPES services in which
authorization and enforcement will be defined. The model will specify the
entities, privileges, notifications, and authorization actions affecting
content. In addition, the model will show how end-to-end services and data
integrity concepts are mapped onto the OPES architecture.

Related Internet-Drafts

Early Requirements document (expired but available on the web site):
     draft-tomlinson-epsfw-00.txt
Updated iCAP Callout Protocol:
     draft-elson-opes-icap-01.txt
A Rule Specification Language for Proxy Services:
     draft-beck-opes-irml-00.txt
OPES Network Taxonomy:
     draft-erikson-opes-net-taxonomy-00.txt
OPES Architecture for Rule Processing and Service Execution:
     draft-yang-opes-rule-processing-service-execution-00.txt
OMML: OPES Meta-data Markup Language:
     draft-maciocco-opes-omml-00.txt
General Use Cases:
     draft-beck-opes-esfnep-01.txt

Goals and Milestones:

Aug 01: Working Group review of OPES Deployment Scenarios
     document.
Sep 01: Working Group review of callout protocol
     requirements.
Nov 01: iCAP Protocol document last call.
Dec 01: Working group review of policy requirements
     document(s).
Feb 02: Working group review of alternative callout
     protocol.
Mar 02: Policy requirements document last call.

Michael W. Condry
Director,  Network Edge Technology

--
Jayanth P. Mysore
Networks and Infrastructure Research Laboratory,
Motorola Labs
Phone : (847) 576-8561

Michael W. Condry
Director,  Network Edge Technology
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>