At 12:44 PM -0400 6/10/02, Abbie Barbir wrote:
<snip>
Furtheremore, I think that the topic of general notification should be delayed
for a later stage. This will be mentioned in the draft also.
I don't have any problem delaying the notification issue at this
point, but it does strike me that addressing the IAB's concerns on
notification could possibly require "architectural" elements -- but
also might possibly not. Some of Oskar Batuner's suggestions seem to
help and may not change any architecture.
I also agree with Oskar's concern that a server veto of a client-side
virus checking OPES service would not be acceptable -- unless the
server's veto was manifested by a simple refusal to serve the
requested content. In most cases, the server will want
viewers/users/visitors, and so will have an incentive NOT to veto
reasonable OPES services.
We obviously will have to think carefully about whether server
review/consent/veto of client-side OPES services will be viable. I
would suggest, however, that the WG not reject the concept entirely,
because I think it very likely that (a) client-side OPES services
will be used to do things that some servers/content-owners do not
like, and (b) those servers/content-owners will take action to block
or break those OPES services. The WG might well in the long run be
avoiding problems if it can devise a way to give servers appropriate
notice of client-side OPES services.
John