RE: Tentative OPES Agenda for IETF 53

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.
>
> thanks,
>
> Reinaldo
> -----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:
> >
> > > 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
Michael W. Condry
Director,  Network Edge Technology