Publishers care if their content is damaged in flight (e.g.
proxies which remove or alter content, which includes AOL's mangling of
graphics). They also may care to know how many people and which people are
accessing content.
One advantages offered by OPES is that the publisher only allows their
trusted services to be run at the edge(s) of the network. Services are run
explicitely, not transparently.
I think OPES will further the sale of SSL accelerator boxes and web
certificates. If the only way to protect content from
uninvited third-party intermediaries, then content which is not otherwise
confidential is going to be encrypted.
It's one thing if the publisher purposely buys the services
of a content delivery network, it's quite something else when someone
inserts a
transparent proxy, especially one which alters the content.
See above.
Christian
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Senie [mailto:dts(_at_)senie(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 2:01 PM
To: Scott Brim; Mark Nottingham
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
At 04:23 PM 6/18/01, Scott Brim wrote:
Publishers lose control of how a resource is treated but still
(optionally) retain control over the resource itself, e.g. through
watermarks. I doubt that publishers care if their content is carried
over Ethernet or ATM today.
How much do publishers care how their
content is encapsulated, routed, encoded, etc.?
Publishers care if their content is damaged in flight (e.g.
proxies which
remove or alter content, which includes AOL's mangling of
graphics). They
also may care to know how many people and which people are
accessing content.
What do you think OPES
could do that a publisher (1) would be concerned about, and (2) could
not protect against?
I think OPES will further the sale of SSL accelerator boxes and web
certificates. If the only way to protect content from
uninvited third-party
intermediaries, then content which is not otherwise
confidential is going
to be encrypted.
It's one thing if the publisher purposely buys the services
of a content
delivery network, it's quite something else when someone inserts a
transparent proxy, especially one which alters the content.
On 18 Jun 2001 at 12:51 -0700, Mark Nottingham apparently wrote:
As such, the OPES goals break end-to-end transparency at the
application layer. As a result, (using HTTP as an
example, because it
seems the first target of OPES), the publisher loses
control over a
resource once it leaves their server. It then becomes
impossible to
makes statements about that resource (e.g., P3P, Semantic
Web, legal
status of a resource, etc.).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie dts(_at_)senie(_dot_)com
Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com