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
Title: RE: OPES is evil incarnate
-Original Message-
From: Mike O'Dell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OPES is evil incarnate
I can't believe what i'm reading here
the though of the IETF hosting a group
Title: RE: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
-Original Message-
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 8:16 PM
To: Michael W. Condry
Cc: Mark Nottingham; Scott Brim; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WG Review:
This debate over OPES appear sto have a blend of technology religion,
business interest, and even some hand-waving or other failures to
communicate at its core. I, too, can quibble with the proposed charter but
there is a need for a standard mechanism for calling services that operate
on http
I believe OPES-like services are already creeping in. Consider wireless
systems where a great deal of compression is employed to reduce data
streams. This includes proprietary mechanisms to re-publish graphics
and web pages to reduce bandwidth requirements.
However, in such systems where the
Christian,
reducing the overhead of TLS is certainly a laudable goal. but I don't
think that IETF should legitimize modification of content by unauthorized
intermediaries even if it is possible to reduce the overhead of TLS.
Keith
Lee,
The debate does have a blend of technology, religion, business
interest, and historical allusion. At its core, though, is a serious
question: does the desire for a mechanism for calling services that
operate on application level messages at an intermediary outweigh the
desire to
wow...I'm not sure we fundamentally disagree about the outcome,
but this seems to contain several different kinds of confusion.
1. intermediary: Lately it has become fashionable to use this term
as a catch-all to describe any network element between the endpoints,
acting at any layer of the
