[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Tentative OPES Agenda for IETF 53

2002-03-12 12:10:25
I do not believe you read what I wrote.

I am not objecting to personalization.

I do believe that OPES protocols will consider the needs of personalization as one applications area.

I also believe there are many other aspects to personalization than suit OPES's charter.

Language translation, shopping assistant, picture transcodeing, stream re-coding, these are all applications that will benefit from the OPES architecture. But I do not expect they are on the OPES working group agenda.

At 10:58 AM 3/12/2002, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
Hello Michael,

I second John's email. Personalization has a lot to do with OPES. Personalization in relation to OPES have a lot of interested parties as you can see based on the two drafts we produced. You can say it's not on the immediate charter but it is something we should pursue without a doubt.

Moreover, when you talk about endpoint authorization, the everlasting question (that we discussed ad nauseum in PANA) is: are you talking about the device or the user? In the case of OPES you are surely talking about the user, since the authorization needs to be given on a per user basis.

In this case you can say that OPES is by definition a personalized service.


-----Original Message-----
From: John G. Waclawsky [mailto:jgw(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:46 AM
To: Condry, Michael W.
Cc: Knight, Paul [BL60:1A00:EXCH]; OPES Group
Subject: 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:


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.


-----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


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!



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

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