Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) Treatment of IAB Considerations
draft-ietf-opes-iab-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Margaret Wasserman |
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ted Hardie |
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2004-04-20
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2004-04-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2004-04-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2004-04-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2004-04-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Amy Vezza |
2004-04-19
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2004-04-12
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-opes-iab-05.txt |
2004-03-25
|
05 | Ted Hardie | Shepherding AD has been changed to Ted Hardie from Ned Freed |
2004-02-19
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Amy Vezza |
2004-02-19
|
05 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
2004-02-18
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Ted Hardie |
2004-02-18
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot comment] I'm not sure how this text in 7.: In some environments, it is technically possible to adapt URIs (and other kinds of identifiers … [Ballot comment] I'm not sure how this text in 7.: In some environments, it is technically possible to adapt URIs (and other kinds of identifiers or addresses) using documented OPES mechanisms. The OPES framework cannot effectively prohibit any specific adaptations. relates to the IAB requirement. If they mean "URI adaptation" occurs before URI resolution and may, thereby influencing that resolution, then a clearer statement of that seems to be required. If they mean something else, a pointer to the definition here would be useful. As it is, the requirement says: "OPES documentation must be clear in describing these services as being applied to the result of URI resolution, not as URI resolution itself."[RFC3238] Did they really mean to imply the Cable company would have terms of use that demanded you look at their advertisements for porn (section 5.1)? For example, a Cable Company Internet Service Provider (Cable ISP) may provide a user-configurable porn filtering service to its subscribers while having an agreement with the parent Cable Company to send notifications to the content provider when clients (content consumers) use the same filter to block Company's advertisement images. If the Cable Company deems such subscriber actions inappropriate, the company may contact individual subscribers and enforce their ISP usage policy according to the terms of the service agreement. I can read it other ways, but this seems like they might want to fix it. Not a blocking comment as this is certainly an arresting example, but it seems unintended. Shifting it "to block access to the Company's general-purpose advertisement images" might help. |
2004-02-18
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Ted Hardie |
2004-02-18
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot comment] 'm not sure how this text in 7.: In some environments, it is technically possible to adapt URIs (and other kinds of identifiers … [Ballot comment] 'm not sure how this text in 7.: In some environments, it is technically possible to adapt URIs (and other kinds of identifiers or addresses) using documented OPES mechanisms. The OPES framework cannot effectively prohibit any specific adaptations. relates to the IAB requirement. If they mean "URI adaptation" occurs before URI resolution and may, thereby influencing that resolution, then a clearer statement of that seems to be required. If they mean something else, a pointer to the definition here would be useful. As it is, the requirement says: "OPES documentation must be clear in describing these services as being applied to the result of URI resolution, not as URI resolution itself."[RFC3238] Did they really mean to imply the Cable company would have terms of use that demanded you look at their advertisements for porn (section 5.1)? For example, a Cable Company Internet Service Provider (Cable ISP) may provide a user-configurable porn filtering service to its subscribers while having an agreement with the parent Cable Company to send notifications to the content provider when clients (content consumers) use the same filter to block Company's advertisement images. If the Cable Company deems such subscriber actions inappropriate, the company may contact individual subscribers and enforce their ISP usage policy according to the terms of the service agreement. I can read it other ways, but this seems like they might want to fix it. Not a blocking comment as this is certainly an arresting example, but it seems unintended. Shifting it "to block access to the Company's general-purpose advertisement images" might help. |
2004-02-18
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot discuss] I'm not sure how this text in 7.: In some environments, it is technically possible to adapt URIs (and other kinds … [Ballot discuss] I'm not sure how this text in 7.: In some environments, it is technically possible to adapt URIs (and other kinds of identifiers or addresses) using documented OPES mechanisms. The OPES framework cannot effectively prohibit any specific adaptations. relates to the IAB requirement. If they mean "URI adaptation" occurs before URI resolution and may, thereby influencing that resolution, then a clearer statement of that seems to be required. If they mean something else, a pointer to the definition here would be useful. As it is, the requirement says: "OPES documentation must be clear in describing these services as being applied to the result of URI resolution, not as URI resolution itself."[RFC3238] |
2004-02-18
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot discuss] I'm not sure how this text in 7.: In some environments, it is technically possible to adapt URIs (and other kinds … [Ballot discuss] I'm not sure how this text in 7.: In some environments, it is technically possible to adapt URIs (and other kinds of identifiers or addresses) using documented OPES mechanisms. The OPES framework cannot effectively prohibit any specific adaptations. relates to the IAB requirement. If they mean "URI adaptation" occurs before URI resolution and may, therefore effect that resolution, then a clearer statement of that seems to be required. As it is, the requirement says: "OPES documentation must be clear in describing these services as being applied to the result of URI resolution, not as URI resolution itself."[RFC3238] So if they are saying http://www.example.com/bar.txt" triggers an adaptation to h |
2004-02-18
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Ted Hardie |
2004-02-18
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot comment] Did they really mean to imply the Cable company would have terms of use that demanded you look at their advertisements for porn … [Ballot comment] Did they really mean to imply the Cable company would have terms of use that demanded you look at their advertisements for porn (section 5.1)? For example, a Cable Company Internet Service Provider (Cable ISP) may provide a user-configurable porn filtering service to its subscribers while having an agreement with the parent Cable Company to send notifications to the content provider when clients (content consumers) use the same filter to block Company's advertisement images. If the Cable Company deems such subscriber actions inappropriate, the company may contact individual subscribers and enforce their ISP usage policy according to the terms of the service agreement. I can read it other ways, but this seems like they might want to fix it. Not a blocking comment as this is certainly an arresting example, but it seems unintended. Shifting it "to block access to the Company's general-purpose advertisement images" might help. |
2004-02-18
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2004-02-18
|
05 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2004-02-18
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Margaret Wasserman |
2004-02-17
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] Comment from Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART: If this draft needs to be published as an RFC (why? especially since it has normative references that … [Ballot comment] Comment from Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART: If this draft needs to be published as an RFC (why? especially since it has normative references that will prevent its publication until OPES is finished anyway), it's close to OK to publish. I have two comments: - Section 3 on "one-party consent" seems unresponsive to the IAB concern. The authors can identify situations where one-party consent isn't reasonable or practical, but don't name situations where one-party consent DOES make sense. The rest of the sections seemed like the WG "gets it". This section does not. - The last paragraph in Section 5.1 was unclear to me. It might help if the two entities named were not the Cable Company ISP and the Cable Company, but it took about four reads before I could even start to guess what this example had to do with notifications vs trace. |
2004-02-17
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-02-06
|
05 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-02-05 |
2004-02-04
|
05 | Ted Hardie | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Ted Hardie |
2004-02-04
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot discuss] I don't think that we should approve this document until we hear back from the IAB regarding whether it addresses their issues. |
2004-02-04
|
05 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2004-02-04
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] RFC 3238 has a lot to say about data integrity. It says, for example: > > One of the goals of … [Ballot discuss] RFC 3238 has a lot to say about data integrity. It says, for example: > > One of the goals of the OPES architecture must be to maintain the > robustness long cited as one of the overriding goals of the Internet > architecture [Clark88]. Given this, we recommend that the IESG > require that the OPES architecture protect end-to-end data integrity > by supporting end-host detection and response to inappropriate > behavior by OPES intermediaries. > Yet, the word 'integrity' does not appear in this document. The security considerations are inadequate. At a minimum, I would like to see pointers to sections that discuss of integrity and confidentiality. |
2004-02-04
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2004-02-03
|
05 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot comment] I would like to hear the IAB's opinion of this document. |
2004-02-03
|
05 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin |
2004-01-29
|
05 | Ned Freed | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ned Freed |
2004-01-29
|
05 | Ned Freed | Ballot has been issued by Ned Freed |
2004-01-29
|
05 | Ned Freed | Created "Approve" ballot |
2004-01-29
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2004-01-29
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2004-01-29
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2004-01-29
|
05 | Ned Freed | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-02-05 by Ned Freed |
2004-01-29
|
05 | Ned Freed | [Note]: 'A bit late getting this on the agenda, sorry' added by Ned Freed |
2004-01-29
|
05 | Ned Freed | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ned Freed |
2003-12-05
|
05 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova |
2003-12-04
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-opes-iab-04.txt |
2003-10-27
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-opes-iab-03.txt |
2003-09-24
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-opes-iab-02.txt |
2003-08-29
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-opes-iab-01.txt |
2003-06-12
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-opes-iab-00.txt |