Re: Tentative OPES Agenda for IETF 53

Could you expand a little on why you do not consider personalization an 
OPES item? At a minimum I believe it is strongly related because opes 
could provide new ways of accomplishing it.    Regards  John
Condry, Michael W. wrote:

> IMHO Personalization is an interesting topic area but not an OPES item 
> in my opinion. Clearly I was interested in this area!
> It would be useful to extract the key observations made and discuss 
> them on the mailing list/working group.
> At 06:34 AM 3/12/2002, Paul Knight wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Although I agree the workgroup charter and IAB considerations are 
> > obviously the primary focus of our work, I did want to point out 
> > another two (non-WG) IDs which contain valuable input to the discussions:
> > - draft-barbir-opes-spcs-01.txt, "Requirements for an OPES Service 
> > Personalization Callout Server", which contains some good discussion 
> > of callout server issues
> > - draft-barbir-opes-fsp-01.txt, "A Framework for Service 
> > Personalization". In addition to personalization elements, this also 
> > contains a useful section on threat analysis and security mechanisms, 
> > which may be a good starting point for these issues across OPES.
> > I hope these will be useful as input to the WG discussions.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Paul
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Markus Hofmann [ mailto:markus(_at_)mhof(_dot_)com ]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 1:54 AM
> > To: OPES Group
> > Cc: Hilarie Orman; Allison Mankin; Ned Freed; Patrik Fältström
> > Subject: Tentative OPES Agenda for IETF 53
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > below the tentative agenda for the OPES meeting at IETF 53. Focus will
> > be on the next immediate document deliverables and on how we want to
> > get there - and less on existing Internet Drafts that have previously
> > been submitted with reference to OPES.
> >
> > This also implies that we do not necessarily take existing IDs as
> > starting points for the WG docments, but that we rather consider them
> > valuable input, taking into account the final charter and the IAB
> > considerations for OPES.
> >
> > It is important that we get more discussions going on the list prior
> > to the meeting. Thanks to Hilarie for initiating a threat on content
> > path security/encryption. Please read Hilarie's posting and comment on
> > it. Also feel free to comment on relevant issues listed below. Without
> > discussion, no progress!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >    Markus
> >
> > =============================================================
> >
> > Agenda for OPES Meeting at IETF53
> > =================================
> >
> > - Introduction, minutes taker, blue sheets
> > - Agenda bashing
> > - Charter walk-hhrough
> > - Discussion of workplan, milestones, and how we want to get there.
> > - Disussion on the end-to-end integrity and encryption compatibility
> >    issue for proposal to the ADs.
> > - Discussion of next WG documents
> >      - Scenario document
> >      - Architecture document
> >      - Callout protocol/tracing requirements
> >      - Endpoint authorization and enforcement document
> >      - Threat/risk model document
> >
> > Related Internet Drafts (non-WG drafts)
> > - draft-barbir-opes-vpcn-00.txt
> > - draft-dracinschi-opes-callout-requirements-00.txt
> > - draft-elson-icap-00.txt (expired)
> > - draft-mchenry-opes-deployment-scenarios-00.txt (expired)
> > - draft-rafalow-opes-policy-requirements-00.txt (expired)
> > - draft-tomlinson-opes-model-01.txt
> Michael W. Condry
> Director,  Network Edge Technology