At 07:55 6/19/2001 -0700, Michael W. Condry wrote:
>Keith-
>Our interest in OPES and the interest of the folks we are working with
>are not with services such as unrequested ad insertion or other items that
>might
>be viewed as offensive. Lots of things can be mis-used, SPAM email
>is a better example; we even get it on the working group mailing lists, ever
>read the WEBI mailing list?
I don't think this is a fair example. Unless you're comparing OPES
services with open-relay SPAM filters? (OK, sorry, that's probably another
Pandora's box I just opened on this list...)
>Although you have made many comments on the charter as well
>as your thoughts during the open area applications meeting I have not
>seen you at the OPES BOFs or OPES workshops.
*cough* not everyone can make it to physical meetings, and while I suspect
that Keith (since that's who you are addressing) is physically present at
the IETF meetings it's very possible that he's actually sat in another
meeting that's take place at the same time.
That's why we have the mailing lists.
> There you could
>hear a diverse set of applications that I would be surprised if you would
>feel to be offensive. We plan to have a '"Deployment Scenarios" document
>that describes a range of applications and constructive comments from
>you would be appreciated.
>
>Offensive services can be done at the server end of things as well, such
>as ad-insertion; so the edge architecture is not the issue. We have
>recorded your key point that is doing modifications on the content
>without the permission of the "ends" (client and server) of the operation.
>OPES is quite clear about this requirement.
I don't think that's quite the objection, though of course I could be wrong.
I haven't seen anyone state *clearly* what the objection is to OPES-stuff
with relation to the end-to-end nature of the Internet (and why it's still
applicable even when you have an end-to-end connection between browser and
OPES proxy). So here's an attempt (with thanks to the work on the midtax
document for getting me thinking about this)...
The problem with OPES when deployed in the "general Internet" is that as an
end user I may experience substantially different experiences (receiving
very different content) depending on my entry point. So, for example, I
may suddenly find that I'm using a network that doesn't have that virus
scanning service I was relying on. Or the French-to-English translation
service I needed would suddenly be unavailable, so I couldn't browse a
favorite site any more.
And yes, general caching proxies cause problems too - I can experience
different views because of aggressive caching or the absence of caching.
That said, it's possible that as a user I could authenticate myself with my
home/usual Web intermediary so that I could still get at my services. If
they're available of course (what happens if I'm at home and the OPES proxy
goes down - I don't get my virus scanning any more do I...)
