[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Tentative OPES Agenda for IETF 53

2002-03-12 12:54:47

--On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:58 -0800 Reinaldo Penno <reinaldo_penno(_at_)nortelnetworks(_dot_)com> wrote:

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

If it's not on the charter then it's not the primary goal, per se, of the group. Sure it's something that has to be considered but I think it should be viewed as one of the services that can (should) be provided within the OPES architecture.

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

Be careful about the term "user". I think you mean User-agent, or more possibly Client in the HTTP-land. User and device are different entities and may require their own independent authorizations, surely.

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

Personalization is one of the things it gets you but I think the term is too loaded to be useful. Is the (ever present) virus scanning example a case of "personalization"? (This feels like a rat hole, so let's be careful)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>