I believe we have been supporting Brian's suggestion all along.
There are cases were the end don't care and others where
there is conflict:
Client: convert all my pictures to files suitable for my pda
Content owner: never allow my pictures to be shown on a pda
The policy work
20, 2001 9:36 PM
To: Vernon Schryver
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 08:12:49AM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
| Why should anyone be
| required to pay
I apologize for asking, but...
I have been reading the ietf-opes.org pages again and I still can't get
a good hold on what OPES is trying to accomplish. There are a lot of
drafts listed on the site that discuss several scenarios like content
peering, edge caching, etc., and while that's all nice
There seems to be consensus that OPES services would have to be
authorized explicitly and must not be transparent to both end-points.
This is in line with the discussion we had at the OPES BOF in
Minneapolis and is also reflected in the group description on the web
page (Intermediary
offhand, I haven't thought of a service for which the consent of
both parties should be required.
A data escrow facility would seen to be an example of such a service.
But even if examples of this are hard to come by, I don't think it would
justify not including the ability to obtain consent
At 01:29 PM 6/19/2001 -0700, Kevin Farley wrote:
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
At 12:18 PM 6/20/2001 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Content/data is/are already being changed/modified/adapted/etc in
transit and
the IETF must deal with it sooner or later.
that follows only if the IETF can make a useful contribution by dealing
with it.
it's not clear whether this is the
it.
/micah
- Original Message -
From: Yang, Lily L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Micah Beck' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
I disagree. Both the content requestor
Title: RE: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
Well,
The discussion has been interesting so far. It seems to me that a
compromise can be reached if appropriate hooks are put in place to do the
following:
1. Ensure that both end points are involved in the decision process.
2
From what I read from the charter below it seems to at least address some of
your concerns.
There's a couple of subtle points here.
- First of all, the WG does not have a charter yet. It has drafted a
charter, but IESG and IAB are not required to accept that charter
verbatim. Before
Joseph Hui wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:18:32 EDT, Keith Moore said:
but this isn't what's controversial about OPES. what's
controversial
is the notion
that the transformations enabled by OPES might also occur in the
interior of the
network, without being explicitly authorized by
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:58:48 MDT, Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
From: Adam Shostack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Yes. I made a point of saying The threat under discussion is that
there is a proxy modifying content... because this discussion started
with OPES. In that particular
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: 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
OK
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
: Monday, June 18, 2001 3:30 PM
To: Maciocco, Christian
Cc: 'Daniel Senie'; Scott Brim; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
How is this enforced? I.e., what prevents an ISP from running an
ad-insertion service using OPES mechanisms in transparent
I have several concerns about this charter.
I cannot tell whether those concerns are merely due to ambiguities in
the charter. I hope this is the case, and that the proponents of
the group will be willing to clarify the charter to narrow the apparent
scope of this proposed group.
The Open
At 12:29 6/15/2001 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do the charter authors intend that this group's purview include bridges,
routers, NATs, proxies, firewalls, gateways, etc?
The charter covers none of these things.
*cough*
I'd seriously hope it would cover proxies and gateways, for some
24 matches
Mail list logo
