Re: Draft Agenda for IETF 56

Alex,

agreed, good suggestion. Thought of covering that under the 
"Introduction to protocol work", but maybe a separate agenda item 
might be more appropriate.
Abbie,

could you cover that topic and lead the discussion on that one, since 
Alex will already present on other topics?
Thanks,
  Markus

Abbie Barbir wrote:
> Alex,
>
> I do second your proposal.
>
>
> Abbie
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov(_at_)measurement-factory(_dot_)com] 
> > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:16 PM
> > To: OPES Group
> > Subject: Re: Draft Agenda for IETF 56
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:
> >
> >
> > >    - Introduction, minutes taker, blue sheets
> > >    - Agenda bashing
> > >    - Status of WG documents
> > >        draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04
> > >        draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03
> > >        draft-ietf-opes-scenarios-01
> > >        draft-ietf-opes-authorization-02
> > >        draft-ietf-opes-threats-02
> >      - OPES scope clarifications
> >
> >
> > >    - Start on OPES protocol work
> > >      - Introduction
> > >      - Major decision points for protocol design
> > >      - OPES protocol pre-draft thoughts
> > >      - General discussion
> > I would like to propose to add another agenda item, "OPES 
> > scope clarifications", as shown above.  We have good 
> > architecture and requirements drafts, but they appear to 
> > leave some scope questions unanswered (or there may be no 
> > consensus how to interpret the drafts). These questions seem 
> > to be one "level" higher than callout protocol work because 
> > they affect more than the callout protocol.
> > Specifically, I would like to discuss the following, under 
> > the new agenda item:
> >         1) Can OPES redirect application messages? That is,
> >           can OPES change the final destination of an application
> >           message? If yes,
> >                 ~ What OPES agents can do that (dispatcher and/or
> >                   callout server)?
> >                 ~ What techniques are allowed (e.g., rewriting
> >                   application message headers, responding with
> >                   a "redirect" response if supported by the
> >                   application protocol)?
> >
> >           And if no,
> >                 ~ Can generating a response without forwarding
> >                   the request be considered a form of redirection?
> >                   Is that kind of transaction termination allowed
> >                   for application error messages only? What is an
> >                   error?
> >
> >         2) Can OPES fan out messages (a single application
> >            message is forwarded as multiple messages)? Can OPES
> >            aggregate messages (multiple application messages are
> >            forwarded as a single application message)?
> >
> >         3) Can OPES provide protocol translation service? That is,
> >           can OPES switch flow from one application protocol to
> >           another (e.g., HTTP transaction with FTP URL to an FTP
> >           transaction)?
> >
> >         4) Can OPES agents communicate with providers and consumers
> >           using application protocols? For example, can an OPES-aware
> >           proxy do this:
> >                 ~ suspend an HTTP request (do not forward it)
> >                 ~ "respond" with a OPES-generated HTML page
> >                   containing a <form>, asking for user
> >                   password/preferences
> >                 ~ receive the result of form submission
> >                 ~ forward the original HTTP request,
> >                   possibly adjusted based on user answers in
> >                   the form
> >                 ~ forward the response back to the client
> >
> >           The above is a relatively common behavior supported by
> >           existing HTTP intermediaries (especially popular at
> >           ISPs). It opens the door for many "enhanced" services.
> >           Should OPES support this?
> >
> >
> > Question 1-3 attempt to clarify scope of OPES services; what 
> > can be modified by OPES: just message content and affected 
> > headers; content, headers, and transport-level connections 
> > (destination/source); number of messages; protocol itself? 
> > The answer to question 4 will draw the line between OPES 
> > agents and providers/consumers: what kinds of communication 
> > are allowed?
> >
> > Are these real issues worth discussing? Or do they already 
> > have precise answers in WG drafts? Do they fit into existing 
> > agenda items? Any changes to the above list?
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Alex.