RE: Tentative OPES Agenda for IETF 53
good points regarding the personalization stuff.
the multi-modal work could be implemented as an intermeidary, and OPES does
fit the bill.
From: The Purple Streak (Hilarie Orman)
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 3:47 PM
Cc: OPES Group
Subject: Re: Tentative OPES Agenda for IETF 53
There are some very good protocol issues in the
I'm not certain that they change the architecture, though.
all the content path protocols already have a notion of user session,
and an intermediary can understand this and apply personalization
rules without any architecture extensions. More complicated notions
of session, based on exotic cookies, for example, might have to be
programmed into the intermediary, but the identification of
can be communicated to the callout server through context variables
(most likely header extension fields).
For better or worse, the original architecture relegated all issues
regarding things like user profiles to secure configuration to be
protected by AAA stuff.
A question for discussion is whether or not P3P is an appropriate
model for the chained trust relationships that intermediaries need.
On the other hand, I've borrowed heavily from the W3C work on signed
content in developing the data integrity mechanisms that OPES could
use. That seems like a good model for developing the user profile
syntax and protections mechanisms.
We'll need a good, long-term liason if we are to align with W3C. I'd
not have guessed that "multi-modal" would have anything to do with
OPES, for example.
Abbie Barbir wrote:
In my opinion, the work on personalization directly line up with at
least the original OPES work.
I also strongly belive that the OPES senarios should also
align with the
work that is currently done in W3C in multi-modal working group.
There is also, correlation with the W3C webservices
initiative, at least
from the security prospectives.
The above should be taken into consideration when we look at the
From: John G. Waclawsky [mailto:jgw(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:46 PM
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
an OPES item? At a minimum I believe it is strongly
opes could provide new ways of accomplishing it.
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
obviously the primary focus of our work, I did want
to point out
another two (non-WG) IDs which contain valuable input to the
- 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
also contains a useful section on threat analysis and security
mechanisms, which may be a good starting point for
I hope these will be useful as input to the WG discussions.
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
be on the next immediate document deliverables and on
how we want to
get there - and less on existing Internet Drafts that have
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
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
it. Also feel free to comment on relevant issues listed below.
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
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-elson-icap-00.txt (expired)
- draft-mchenry-opes-deployment-scenarios-00.txt (expired)
- draft-rafalow-opes-policy-requirements-00.txt (expired)
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology