Good. BTW, I think you guys should consider your own BOF following this. Now
that the architecture you can use is being accepted your critical
application can come in as well. CONTENT WILL TAKE OVER THE NET....
-----Original Message-----
From: Jayanth Mysore [mailto:Jayanth(_dot_)Mysore(_at_)motorola(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:23 PM
To: Condry Michael W.
Cc: Jayanth Mysore; Reinaldo Penno; jgw(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; Paul Knight; OPES
Group;
ned.freed-mrochek.com
Subject: Re: Tentative OPES Agenda for IETF 53
Fully agreed. Let's not do anything to change the charter after all the
effort. All I wished to state was
that it might not hurt to hear what the group thinks about the topic of
personalization, and if there is a need to change the OPES architecture to
accomodate it, consider doing so.
I would certainly find it incorrect to recharter the OPES WG for the sake of
a single application model.
cheers,
Jayanth
"Condry, Michael W." wrote:
I feel you need to discuss this with the chair and the area director.
I stand by my original position because the personalization area has many
more complexities that are no were near OPES. It is an application that
OPES needs to consider. It is NOT well enough standardized and accepted in
the market to impact the charter of the working group. Its been tough enough
to get that charter to happen, lets stick with the goals!
Why not request a BOF on personalization
At 12:06 PM 3/12/2002, Jayanth Mysore wrote:
I realize the points you make Michael. However, I think depending on the
scope of the term "personalization", a personalization architecture may
actually impact the way an OPES system is architected. In other words, the
OPES model that is currently captured in the drafts may need
minor/siginificant changes to accomodate a level of personalization that the
group is interested in.
For this reason, I sincerely believe it is important to hear the
architectural requirements that those of us interested in personalization
came out with, early on in the dicussion. In other words, it may not be
possible to retrofit a personalization model that most of the group feels
necessary to *any* OPES architecture.
cheers,
Jayanth
"Condry, Michael W." wrote:
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
<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
<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
--
Jayanth P. Mysore
Senior Staff Engineer
Network and Infrastructure Research Laboratory
Motorola Labs
Ph: (847) 576-8561
E-mail: jayanth(_at_)labs(_dot_)mot(_dot_)com
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology
--
Jayanth P. Mysore
Senior Staff Engineer
Network and Infrastructure Research Laboratory
Motorola Labs
Ph: (847) 576-8561
E-mail: jayanth(_at_)labs(_dot_)mot(_dot_)com