Michael Condry wrote:
At 01:03 PM 11/19/2001, John Morris wrote:
>I also would agree with Leslie. My thinking goes as follows:
>
<snip>
>If the OPES service is provided for the benefit of B (or D) but it is NOT
>something that the ISP/provider would be able to obtain contractual
>consent from their customer A (or E), then it strikes me that the OPES
>protocol should not facilitate such an unconsented action by B (or D).
Doesn't this apply to all such proxy services, OPES or not?
Agreed.
>Finally, that leaves possible OPES services provided for the benefit of C
>(a scenario that seems less likely than A, B, D, or E). I for one am
>comfortable saying that OPES cannot be used to provide unconsented
>services to C, even recognizing that one can hypothesize some mundane
>network measurement services that might be desired by C.
Again, I think it is INCORRECT to interpret this as OK if you are doing
this but not conforming to OPES standards, yes????????
<snip>
Also agreed.
Michael, just to be sure that I understand what you are saying, I
understand you to be making the point that OPES might ultimately be
held to a "higher" standards than what is otherwise already possible
out there in the real world.
If that is your point, then I do not dispute your point at all. But,
from my perspective -- and without suggesting that you were arguing
this-- just because "unconsented" actions are possible without OPES
does not mean that such actions should be facilitated by OPES.
John