RE: Tentative OPES Agenda for IETF 53


hilarie,

good points regarding the personalization stuff.

the multi-modal work could be implemented as an intermeidary, and OPES does
fit the bill.

abbie

-----Original Message-----
From: The Purple Streak (Hilarie Orman) 
[mailto:ho(_at_)alum(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu]
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 
personalization drafts.

I'm not certain that they change the architecture, though.  
For example,
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 
the session
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:

Hi all,

 

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 
model/secnarios document.

 

cheers

abbie

 

    -----Original Message-----
    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

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