ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Notification

2003-04-08 08:23:07
Alex,

In general I have no problem(s) with your remarks.

We need to have good justification on what "assiatance means" and how at
least one end "content provider" can detect malfunction (inappropriate
behaior)

Can we say that we expect them to do periodic sanity check?

This is a quick responce for now

Abbie


-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov(_at_)measurement-factory(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:57 AM
To: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Notification



On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Abbie Barbir wrote:

Yes, this should be the case. In this case, is Notification 
application Protocol dependent? Or is it done out of band, 
(this also 
addresses next paragraph too).

Does not matter at this point. Application dependency is a 
secondary problem, IMO. First, we need to decide whether we 
should support notification (on a protocol level) at all.

Here are the IAB requirements:
  (3.1) Notification: The overall OPES framework needs to assist
   content providers in detecting and responding to client-centric
   actions by OPES intermediaries that are deemed 
inappropriate by the
   content provider.

   (3.2) Notification: The overall OPES framework should assist end
   users in detecting the behavior of OPES intermediaries, 
potentially
   allowing them to identify imperfect or compromised 
intermediaries.

I believe tracing satisfies 3.2. The only problem is with 3.1 
because most client-centric actions happen _after_ the 
application message left the content provider(s) and, thus, 
notifications cannot be piggy-backed to application messages 
and have to travel in the opposite direction of traces. Let's 
concentrate on satisfying 3.1 as the subject of this thread.

The 3.1 requirement is quite vague and it is not clear how 
normative are the comments that accompany/justify it. My vote 
is to interpret "assist" above as "assistance on non-protocol 
level". That is, we provide always-on tracing and claim that 
traces are sufficient to satisfy 3.1 above as long as both 
ends cooperate. We can also assert that if the ends do not 
cooperate, then no protocol-level solution will work either. 
Specifically, we suggest that content providers that suspect 
or experience difficulties do the following:

      1. Check whether requests they receive pass through
        OPES intermediaries. Presence of OPES tracing info
        will determine that. This check is only possible for
        request/response protocols. For other protocols (e.g.,
        broadcast or push), the provider would have to assume
        that OPES intermediaries are involved until proven
        otherwise.

      2. If OPES intermediaries are suspected,
        request OPES traces from potentially affected user(s).
        The trace will be a part of the application message
        received by the user software. If users cooperate,
        the provider(s) have all the information they need.
        If users do not cooperate, the provider(s) cannot
        do much about it (they might be able to deny service
        to uncooperative users in some cases).

      3. Some traces may indicate that more information
        is available by accessing certain resources on the
        specified OPES intermediary or elsewhere. Content
        providers may query for more information in that
        case.

      4. If everything else fails, providers can enforce
         no-adaptation policy using appropriate OPES
         bypass mechanisms and/or end-to-end mechanisms.

Alex.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>