From subs-reminder@imc.org Mon Dec 2 23:49:43 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26122 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:49:42 -0500 (EST) From: subs-reminder@imc.org Received: (from phoffman@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gB34qOt27517; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:52:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:52:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200212030452.gB34qOt27517@above.proper.com> To: opes-archive@ietf.org Subject: [[000779428]] Subscription to ietf-openproxy for opes-archive@ietf.org Greetings. This message is a periodic reminder that opes-archive@ietf.org is subscribed to the ietf-openproxy mailing list. There are two purposes for this message: - If this message is bounced by your mail server, I can remove you from the mailing list and reduce waste of bandwidth and resources. (If you are reading this message, it clearly didn't get bounced!) - Some people stay subscribed to mailing lists even though they do not want to because they do not know how to unsubscribe. If you want to stay subscribed to the ietf-openproxy mailing list, you do not need to do anything. Feel free to delete this message. On the other hand, if you want to unsubscribe from this list, simply go to the following link: If for some reason you cannot go to that web site, you can also unsubscribe by email; however, doing so is not as likely to get you unsubscribed as the web site is. To unsubscribe using email, you can respond to this message and I will unsubscribe you by hand in the next few days. Again, this is not assured to work because your mail system may make it impossible for me to determine who you are or what you want to unsubscribe to. Alternatively, you can send a plain-text message to: ietf-openproxy-request@imc.org with the single word unsubscribe in the body of the message. This last method assumes that the "From:" address in your mail is "opes-archive@ietf.org". Again, using the web site above is more likely to work than this method (due to limitations in Majordomo, the mailing list software we currently use). If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. --Paul Hoffman, list administrator From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 11 20:36:02 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28467 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:36:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBC1DWF13275 for ietf-openproxy-bks; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:13:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from kalia.dbc.mtview.ca.us ([65.125.189.124]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id gBC1DUE13266 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:13:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from kalia.dbc.mtview.ca.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kalia.dbc.mtview.ca.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with SMTP id gBC1DPqL005044; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:13:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:13:25 -0800 From: Marshall Rose To: "Abbie Barbir" Cc: markus@mhof.com, ietf-openproxy@imc.org, abbieb@nortelnetworks.com Subject: Re: Publish Draft: draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04 Message-Id: <20021211171325.1f9d5ced.mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> In-Reply-To: <87609AFB433BD5118D5E0002A52CD75404655A71@zcard0k6.ca.nortel.com> References: <87609AFB433BD5118D5E0002A52CD75404655A71@zcard0k6.ca.nortel.com> Organization: Dover Beach Consulting, Inc. X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.3claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; ) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Please publish the following as > Publish Draft: draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04 all - we know that the Acknowledgements section is light. please email abbieb@nortelnetworks.com directly with additions, etc. many thanks, /mtr From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 11 20:37:58 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28549 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:37:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBC1E2313358 for ietf-openproxy-bks; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:14:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com [47.129.242.57]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBC1E0E13351 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:14:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id gBC1Doh27234; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:13:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:13:50 -0500 Message-ID: <87609AFB433BD5118D5E0002A52CD75404655A7A@zcard0k6.ca.nortel.com> From: "Abbie Barbir" To: "'markus@mhof.com'" , "'Marshall Rose'" , "'ietf-openproxy@imc.org'" Subject: FW: Autoreply from Internet Draft Submission Manager Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:13:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2A17B.BAC745CA" Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2A17B.BAC745CA Content-Type: text/plain fyi, abbie > -----Original Message----- > From: ietfauto@ietf.org [mailto:ietfauto@ietf.org] > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 8:09 PM > To: Barbir, Abbie [CAR:1A00:EXCH] > Subject: Re: Autoreply from Internet Draft Submission Manager > > > Hello, > > This message is being sent to acknowledge receipt of your > submission or message to internet-drafts@ietf.org > > The I-D administrator will be out of the office from December > 23rd until Monday, January 6, 2003. All submissions will be processed. > > Thank you. We appreciate your understanding and patience. > > Have a wonderful and joyous holiday season. > > Internet-Drafts Administrator > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2A17B.BAC745CA Content-Type: text/html FW: Autoreply from Internet Draft Submission Manager

fyi,
abbie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietfauto@ietf.org [mailto:ietfauto@ietf.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 8:09 PM
> To: Barbir, Abbie [CAR:1A00:EXCH]
> Subject: Re: Autoreply from Internet Draft Submission Manager
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This message is being sent to acknowledge receipt of your
> submission or message to internet-drafts@ietf.org
>
> The I-D administrator will be out of the office from December
> 23rd until Monday, January 6, 2003. All submissions will be processed.
>
> Thank you. We appreciate your understanding and patience.
>
> Have a wonderful and joyous holiday season.
>
> Internet-Drafts Administrator
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2A17B.BAC745CA-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 11 20:44:13 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA28623 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:44:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBC1BbU12983 for ietf-openproxy-bks; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:11:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com [47.129.242.57]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBC1BYE12975 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:11:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcard309.ca.nortel.com (zcard309.ca.nortel.com [47.129.242.69]) by zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id gBC1BIh27206; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:11:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by zcard309.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:11:18 -0500 Message-ID: <87609AFB433BD5118D5E0002A52CD75404655A71@zcard0k6.ca.nortel.com> From: "Abbie Barbir" To: "'internet-drafts@ietf.org'" Cc: "'markus@mhof.com'" , "'Marshall Rose'" , "'ietf-openproxy@imc.org'" , "Abbie Barbir" Subject: Publish Draft: draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 20:11:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C2A17B.5E1C9FBE" Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2A17B.5E1C9FBE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2A17B.5E1C9FBE" ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2A17B.5E1C9FBE Content-Type: text/plain Please publish the following as Publish Draft: draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04 thanks abbie ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2A17B.5E1C9FBE Content-Type: text/html Publish Draft: draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04

Please publish the following as
Publish Draft: draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04

thanks
abbie

  ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2A17B.5E1C9FBE-- ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2A17B.5E1C9FBE Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Network Working Group A. = Barbir Internet-Draft Nortel = Networks Expires: June 11, 2003 R. = Chen AT&T = Labs M. = Hofmann Bell Labs/Lucent = Technologies H. = Orman Purple Streak = Development R. = Penno Nortel = Networks December 11, = 2002 An Architecture for Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six = months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 11, 2003. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This memo defines an architecture that enables the creation of an application service in which a data provider, a data consumer, and zero or more application entities cooperatively implement a data stream service. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 1] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 3 2. The Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 4 2.1 OPES Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 4 2.1.1 Data Dispatcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 5 2.2 OPES Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 6 2.3 OPES Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 7 2.4 Callout Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 7 2.5 Tracing Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 9 3. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . = 11 3.1 Trust Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 11 3.2 Establishing Trust and Service Authorization . . . . . . . . = 12 3.3 Callout protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 13 3.4 Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 14 3.5 End-to-end Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 14 4. IAB Architectural and Policy Considerations for OPES . . . . = 15 4.1 IAB consideration (2.1) One-party consent . . . . . . . . . = 15 4.2 IAB consideration (2.2) IP-layer communications . . . . . . = 15 4.3 IAB consideration (3.1 and 3.2) Notification . . . . . . . . = 15 4.4 IAB consideration (3.3) Non-blocking . . . . . . . . . . . . = 15 4.5 IAB consideration (4.1) URI resolution . . . . . . . . . . . = 15 4.6 IAB consideration (4.2) Reference validity . . . . . . . . . = 16 4.7 IAB consideration (4.3) Application addressing extensions . = 16 4.8 IAB consideration (5.1) Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 16 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 17 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 18 7. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 19 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 20 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 21 A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = 23 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . = 24 Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 2] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 1. Introduction When supplying a data stream service between a provider and a consumer, the need may arise to provision the use of other application entities, in addition to the provider and consumer. For example, some party may wish to customize a data stream as a service to a consumer. The customization step might be based on the customer's resource availability (e.g., display capabilities). In some cases it may be beneficial to provide a customization = service at a network location between the provider and consumer host rather than at one of these endpoints. For certain services performed on behalf of the end-user, this may be the only option of service deployment. In this case, zero or more additional application entities may participate in the data stream service. There are many possible provisioning scenarios which make a data stream service attractive. The OPES Use Cases and Deployment Scenarios [1] = document provides examples of OPES services. The document discusses services that modify requests, services that modify responses and services that create responses. It is recommended that the document on OPES Use Cases and Deployment Scenarios [1] be read before reading this document. This document presents the architectural components of Open = Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) that are needed in order to perform a data stream service. The architecture addresses the IAB considerations described in [2]. These considerations are covered in various parts of the document. Section 2.5 addresses tracing, section 3 addresses security considerations. In section 4 a summary of IAB considerations and how the architecture addresses them is provided. The document is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the OPES architecture. Section 3 discusses OPES security and privacy considerations. Section 4 addresses IAB considerations for OPES. Section 5 discusses security considerations. Section 6 addresses IANA considerations. Section 7 provides a summary of the architecture and the requirements for interoperability. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 3] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 2. The Architecture The architecture of Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) can be described in terms of three interrelated concepts, mainly: o OPES entities: processes operating in the network; o OPES flows: data flows that are cooperatively realized by the OPES entities; and, o OPES rules: these specify when and how to execute OPES services. 2.1 OPES Entities An OPES entity is an application that operates on a data flow = between a data provider application and a data consumer application. OPES entities can be: o an OPES service application, which analyzes and possibly transforms messages exchanged between the data provider application and the data consumer application; o a data dispatcher, which invokes an OPES service application = based on an OPES ruleset and application-specific knowledge. The cooperative behavior of OPES entities introduces additional functionality for each data flow provided that it matches the OPES rules. In the network, OPES entities reside inside OPES processors. In the current work, an OPES processor MUST include a data dispatcher. Furthermore, the data provider and data consumer applications are not considered as OPES entities. In order to provide verifiable system integrity (see section 3.1 on trust domains below), facilitate deployment of end-to-end encryption and data integrity control , OPES processors MUST be: o explicitly addressable at the IP layer by the end user (data consumer application). This requirement does not preclude a = chain of OPES processors with the first one in the chain explicitly addressed at the IP layer by the end user (data consumer application). o consented to by either the data consumer or data provider application. The details of this process is beyond the scope of the current work. The OPES architecture is largely independent of the protocol that is Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 4] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 used by the data provider application and the data consumer application to exchange data. However, this document selects HTTP [3] as the example for the underlying protocol in OPES flows. 2.1.1 Data Dispatcher Data dispatchers include a ruleset that can be compiled from several sources and MUST resolve into an unambiguous result. The combined ruleset enables an OPES processor to determine which service applications to invoke for which data flow. Accordingly, the data dispatcher constitutes an enhanced policy enforcement point, where policy rules are evaluated, service-specific data handlers and state information is maintained, as depicted in Figure 1. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 5] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 +----------+ | callout | | server | +----------+ || || || || +--------------------------+ | +-----------+ || | | | OPES | || | | | service | || | | |application| || | | +-----------+ || | | +----------------------+ | OPES flow <---->| | data dispatcher and | |<----> OPES = flow | | policy enforcement | | | +----------------------+ | | OPES | | processor | +--------------------------+ Figure 1: Data Dispatchers The architecture allows for more than one policy enforcement point = to be present on an OPES flow. 2.2 OPES Flows An OPES flow is a cooperative undertaking between a data provider application, a data consumer application, zero or more OPES service applications, and one or more data dispatchers. Since policies are enforced by data dispatchers, the presence of at least one data dispatcher is required in the OPES flow. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 6] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 data OPES OPES data provider processor A processor N consumer +-----------+ +-----------+ . +-----------+ +-----------+ | data | | OPES | . | OPES | | data | | consumer | | service | . | service | | provider | |application| |application| . |application| |application| +-----------+ +-----------+ . +-----------+ +-----------+ | | | | . | | | | | HTTP | | HTTP | . | HTTP | | HTTP | | | | | . | | | | +-----------+ +-----------+ . +-----------+ +-----------+ | TCP/IP | | TCP/IP | . | TCP/IP | | TCP/IP | +-----------+ +-----------+ . +-----------+ +-----------+ || || || . || || || =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D.=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D | <----------------- OPES flow -------------------> | Figure 2: An OPES flow Figure 2 depicts two data dispatchers that are present in the OPES flow. The architecture allows for one or more data dispatchers to = be present in any flow. 2.3 OPES Rules OPES policy regarding services and the data provided to them is determined by a ruleset consisting of OPES rules. The rules consist of a set of conditions and related actions. The ruleset is the superset of all OPES rules on the processor. The OPES ruleset determines which service applications will operate on a data stream. In this model, all data dispatchers are invoked for all flows. In order to ensure predictable behavior, the OPES architecture requires the use of a standardized schema for the purpose of = defining and interpreting the ruleset. The OPES architecture does not = require a mechanism for configuring a ruleset into a data dispatcher. This is treated as a local matter for each implementation (e.g., through the use of a text editor, secure upload protocol, and so on), as = long as such mechanism complies with the requirements set forth in = section 3. 2.4 Callout Servers The evaluation of the OPES ruleset determines which service applications will operate on a data stream. How the ruleset is Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 7] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 evaluated is not the subject of the architecture, except to note = that it MUST result in the same unambiguous result in all = implementations. In some cases it may be useful for the OPES processor to distribute the responsibility of service execution by communicating with one or more callout servers. A data dispatcher invokes the services of a callout server by using the OPES callout protocol (OCP). The requirements for the OCP are given in [6]. The OCP is application- agnostic, being unaware of the semantics of the encapsulated application protocol (e.g., HTTP). However, the data dispatcher = MUST incorporate a service aware vectoring capability that parses the = data flow according to the ruleset and delivers the data to either the local or remote OPES service application. The general interaction situation is depicted in Figure 3, which illustrates the positions and interaction of different components of OPES architecture. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 8] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 +--------------------------+ | +-----------+ | | | OPES | | | | service | | +---------------+ = +-----------+ | |application| | | Callout | | = Callout | | +-----------+ | | Server A | | = Server X | | || | | +--------+ | | = | | +----------------------+ | | | OPES | | | = | | | data dispatcher | | | | Service| | | = +--------+| | +----------------------+ | | | Appl A | | | | = OPES || | || || | | +--------+ | | = |Service || | +---------+ +-------+ | | || | | | = Appl X || | | HTTP | | | | | +--------+ | ... | = +--------|| | | | | OCP |=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D| | OCP = | | | || | | +---------+ +-------+ | | +--------+ | | = +------+ | | | | || | +---------------+ | | = OCP | | | | TCP/IP | = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D| | | | | | | | = +------+ | | +---------+ | = +-----------+ +--------||-||-------------+ || || +--------+ || || = +--------+ |data |=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D|data | |producer| = |consumer| +--------+ = +--------+ Figure 3: Interaction of OPES Entities 2.5 Tracing Facility The OPES architecture requires that each data dispatcher provides tracing facilities that allow the appropriate verification of its operation. The OPES architecture requires that tracing be feasible on the OPES flow per OPES processor using in-band annotation. One = of those annotations could be a URI with more detailed information on the OPES services being executed in the OPES flow. Providing the ability for in-band annotation MAY require header extensions on the application protocol that is used (e.g., HTTP). However, the presence of an OPES processor in the data request/ response flow SHALL NOT interfere with the operations of non-OPES aware clients and servers. The support of these extensions to the base protocol HTTP is not required by non-OPES clients and servers. OPES processors MUST obey tracing, reporting and notification requirements set by the center of authority in the trust domain to Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 9] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 which OPES processor belongs. As part of these requirements OPES processor may be instructed to reject or ignore such requirements that originate from other trust domains. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 10] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 3. Security and Privacy Considerations Each data flow MUST be secured in accordance with several policies. The primary stakeholders are the data consumer and the data = provider. The secondary stakeholders are the entities to which they may have delegated their trust. The other stakeholders are the owners of the callout servers. Any of these parties may be participants in the OPES flow. These parties MUST have a model, explicit or implicit, describing their trust policy; which of the other parties are trusted to = operate on data, and what security enhancements are required for communication. The trust might be delegated for all data, or it might be restricted to granularity as small as an application data unit. All parties that are involved in enforcing policies MUST communicate the policies to the parties that are involved. These parties are trusted to adhere to the communicated policies. In order to delegate fine-grained trust, the parties MUST convey policy information by implicit contract, by a setup protocol, by a dynamic negotiation protocol, or in-line with application data headers. 3.1 Trust Domains The delegation of authority starts at either a data consumer or data provider and moves to more distant entities in a "stepwise" fashion. Stepwise means A delegates to B and B delegates to C and so forth. The entities thus "colored" by the delegation are said to form a trust domain with respect to the original delegating party. Here, "Colored" means that if the first step in the chain is the data provider, then the stepwise delegation "colors" the chain with that data "provider" color. The only colors that are defined are the = data "provider" and the data "consumer". Delegation of authority (coloring) propagates from the content producer start of authority = or from the content consumer start of authority, that may be different from the end points in the data flow. Figure 4 illustrates administrative domains and out-of-band rules = and policy distribution. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 11] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 provider administrative domain consumer administrative = domain +------------------------------+ = +-------------------------------+ | +--------------+ | | = +--------------+ | | |Provider | <- out-of-band rules, -> |Consumer = | | | |Administrative|~~>~~~: policies and = ~<~|Administrative| | | |Authority | : service authorization : |Authority = | | | +--------------+ : | | : = +--------------+ | | : : | | : : = | | : : | | : : = | | +----------+ : | | : = +----------+ | | | callout | +---------+ | | +---------+ | = callout | | | | server |=3D=3D=3D=3D| | | | | = |=3D=3D=3D=3D| server | | | +----------+ | | | | | | = +----------+ | | | OPES | | | | OPES | = | | +----------+ |processor| | | |processor| = +----------+ | | | | | | | | | | | = | | | | data | | | | | | | | data = | | | | provider | | | | | | | | = consumer | | | | | +---------+ | | +---------+ = +----------+ | | +----------+ || || | | || || = +----------+ | | || || || | | || || || = | | =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D | | | | = | +-------------------------------+ = +-------------------------------+ | <----------------- OPES flow -----------------> | Figure 4: OPES administrative domains and policy distribution In order to understand the trust relationships between OPES = entities, each is labeled as residing in an administrative domain. Entities associated with a given OPES flow may reside in one or more administrative domains. An OPES processor may be in several trust domains at any time. = There is no restriction on whether the OPES processors are authorized by data consumers and/or data providers. The original party has the option of forbidding or limiting redelegation. An OPES processor MUST have a representation of its trust domain memberships that it can report in whole or in part for tracing purposes. It MUST include the name of the party that delegated each privilege to it. 3.2 Establishing Trust and Service Authorization The OPES processor will have configuration policy specifying what privileges the callout servers have and how they are to be Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 12] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 identified. OPES uses standard protocols for authentication and otherwise security communication with callout servers. An OPES processor will have a trusted method for receiving configuration information such as rules for the data dispatcher, trusted callout servers, primary parties that opt-in or opt-out of individual services, etc. Protocol(s) for policy/rule distribution are out of scope for this document, but the OPES architecture assumes the existence of such a mechanism. Requirements for authorization mechanism are set in a separate document. Certain service requests, positive or negative, may be done in-band (for example OPES service bypass request, e.g. User agent can = insert an HTTP header like "Bypass-OPES"). Such requests MUST be authenticated. The way OPES entities will honor such requests is subordinate to the authorization policies effective at that moment. 3.3 Callout protocol The determination of whether or not OPES processors will use the measures that are described in the previous section during their communication with callout servers depends on the details of how the primary parties delegated trust to the OPES processors and the trust relationship between the OPES processors and the callout server. If the OPES processors are in a single administrative domain with = strong confidentiality guarantees, then encryption may be optional. However, it is recommended that for all cases that encryption and strong authentication be used. If the delegation mechanism names the trusted parties and their privileges in some way that permits authentication, then the OPES processors will be responsible for enforcing the policy and for = using authentication as part of that enforcement. The callout servers MUST be aware of the policy governing the communication path. They MUST not, for example, communicate confidential information to auxiliary servers outside the trust domain. A separate security association MUST be used for each channel established between an OPES processor and a callout server. The channels MUST be separate for different primary parties. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 13] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 3.4 Privacy Some data from data consumers is considered "private" or = "sensitive", and OPES processors MUST both advise the primary parties of their privacy policy and respect the policies of the primary parties. The privacy information MUST be conveyed on a per-flow basis. This can be accomplished by using current available privacy techniques such = as P3P [9] and HTTP privacy capabilities. The callout servers MUST also participate in the handling of private data, and they MUST be prepared to announce their own capabilities and to enforce the policy required by the primary parties. 3.5 End-to-end Integrity Digital signature techniques can be used to mark data changes in = such a way that a third-party can verify that the changes are or are not consistent with the originating party's policy. This requires an inline manner of specifying policy and its binding to data, a trace of changes and the party making the changes, and strong identities and authentication methods. Strong end-to-end integrity can fulfill some of the functions required by "tracing". Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 14] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 4. IAB Architectural and Policy Considerations for OPES This section addresses the IAB considerations for OPES [2] and summarizes how the architecture addresses them. 4.1 IAB consideration (2.1) One-party consent The IAB recommends that all OPES services are explicitly authorized by one of the application-layer end-hosts (that is, either the data consumer application or the data provider application). The current work requires that either the data consumer application or the data provider application consent to OPES services. These requirements have been addressed in sections 2 (section 2.1) and 3. 4.2 IAB consideration (2.2) IP-layer communications The IAB recommends that OPES processors must be explicitly addressed at the IP layer by the end user (data consumer application). This requirement has been addressed in section 2.1, whereby the architecture requires that OPES processors be addressable at the IP layer by the data consumer application. 4.3 IAB consideration (3.1 and 3.2) Notification The IAB recommends that the OPES architecture incorporates tracing facilities. Tracing enables data consumer and data provider applications to detect and respond to actions performed by OPES processors that are deemed inappropriate to the data consumer or = data provider applications. Section 3.2 of this document discusses the tracing and notification facilities that must be supported by OPES services. 4.4 IAB consideration (3.3) Non-blocking The OPES architecture requires the specification of extensions to HTTP. These extension will provide the data consumer application to request a non-OPES version of the content from the data provider application. These requirements is covered in Section 3.2 4.5 IAB consideration (4.1) URI resolution This consideration recommends that OPES documentation must be clear in describing that OPES services as being applied to the result of URI resolution, not as URI resolution itself. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 15] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 This requirement has been addressed in sections 2.5 and 3.2, whereby the proposed architecture requires OPES entities to document all the transformations that have been performed. 4.6 IAB consideration (4.2) Reference validity This consideration recommends that all proposed services must define their impact on inter- and intra-document reference validity. This requirement has been addressed in section 2.5 and throughout = the document whereby OPES entities is required to document the performed transformations. 4.7 IAB consideration (4.3) Application addressing extensions This consideration recommends that any OPES services that cannot be achieved while respecting the above two considerations may be reviewed as potential requirements for Internet application addressing architecture extensions, but must not be undertaken as ad hoc fixes. The current work does not require extensions of the Internet application addressing architecture. 4.8 IAB consideration (5.1) Privacy This consideration recommends that the overall OPES framework must provide for mechanisms for end users to determine the privacy policies of OPES intermediaries. This consideration has been addressed in section 3. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 16] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 5. Security Considerations The proposed work has to deal with security from various = prospective. There are security and privacy issues that relate to data consumer application, callout protocol and the OPES flow. In [7] threat analysis of OPES entities are discussed. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 17] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 6. IANA Considerations The proposed work will evaluate current protocols for OCP. If the work determines that a new protocol need to be developed, then there may be a need to request new numbers from IANA. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 18] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 7. Summary Although the architecture supports a wide range of cooperative transformation services, it has few requirements for interoperability. The necessary and sufficient elements are specified in the following documents: o the OPES ruleset schema [5] which defines the syntax and = semantics of the rules interpreted by a data dispatcher; and, o the OPES callout protocol (OCP) [6] which defines the = requirements for the protocol between a data dispatcher and a callout server. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 19] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 Normative References [1] McHenry, S., et. al, "OPES Scenarios and Use Cases", Internet-Draft TBD, May 2002. [2] Floyd, S. and L. Daigle, "IAB Architectural and Policy Considerations for Open Pluggable Edge Services", RFC 3238, January 2002. [3] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. [4] OPES working group, "OPES Service Authorization and Enforcement Requirements", Internet-Draft TBD, May 2002. [5] OPES working group, "OPES Ruleset Schema", Internet-Draft TBD, May 2002. [6] A. Beck et al., "Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt, December 2002. [7] A. Barbir et al., "Security Threats and Risks for Open = Pluggable Edge Services", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/ internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-threats-00.txt, October 2002. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 20] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 Informative References [8] Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J., Scherling, M., Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A., Carlson, M., Perry, J. and S. Waldbusser, "Terminology for Policy-Based Management", RFC = 3198, November 2001. [9] L. Cranor, et. al, "The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0 (P3P1.0) Specification", W3C Recommendation 16 http:// www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-P3P-20020416/ , April 2002. Authors' Addresses Abbie Barbir Nortel Networks 3500 Carling Avenue Nepean, Ontario K2H 8E9 Canada Phone: +1 613 763 5229 EMail: abbieb@nortelnetworks.com Robin Chen AT&T Labs Room E219, 180 Park Avenue Florham Park, NJ 07932 US Phone: +1 973 360 8653 EMail: chen@research.att.com Markus Hofmann Bell Labs/Lucent Technologies Room 4F-513 101 Crawfords Corner Road Holmdel, NJ 07733 US Phone: +1 732 332 5983 EMail: hofmann@bell-labs.com Hilarie Orman Purple Streak Development Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 21] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 EMail: ho@alum.mit.edu Reinaldo Penno Nortel Networks 2305 Mission College Boulevard San Jose, CA 95134 US Phone: EMail: rpenno@nortelnetworks.com Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 22] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 Appendix A. Acknowledgements This document is the product of OPES WG. Oskar Batuner (Independent consultant) and Andre Beck (Lucent) are additional authors that have contributed to this current document. Earlier versions of this work was done by Gary Tomlinson (The Tomlinson Group) and Michael Condry (Intel). The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of: John = Morris, Mark Baker, Ian Cooper and Marshall T. Rose. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 23] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances = of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification = can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph = are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 24] =0C Internet-Draft OPES Architecture December = 2002 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Barbir, et al. Expires June 11, 2003 [Page = 25] =0C ------_=_NextPart_000_01C2A17B.5E1C9FBE-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 12 12:02:29 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01970 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:02:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBCGS1n24957 for ietf-openproxy-bks; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:28:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (crufty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBCGRwE24950 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 08:27:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-2-10.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gBCGRqLI000243; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:27:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.160.8]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBCGRkI35769; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from bell-labs.com ([135.180.160.178]) by bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08291; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:27:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DF8B8B0.3050304@bell-labs.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:26:24 -0500 From: Andre Beck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-US,de,es MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org CC: Markus Hofmann , Marshall Rose , OPES Group Subject: draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------090200070704040805030501" Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090200070704040805030501 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Please publish the attached OPES WG draft as "draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03". --------------090200070704040805030501 Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Open Pluggable Edge Services A. Beck Internet-Draft M. Hofmann Expires: June 12, 2003 Lucent Technologies H. Orman Purple Streak Development R. Penno Nortel Networks A. Terzis Individual Consultant December 12, 2002 Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2003. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document specifies the requirements that the OPES (Open Pluggable Edge Services) callout protocol must satisfy in order to support the remote execution of OPES services. The requirements are intended to help evaluating possible protocol candidates as well as to guide the development of such protocols. Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 Table of Contents 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Functional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 Congestion Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3 Callout Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4 Callout Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5 Asynchronous Message Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.6 Message Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.7 Support for Keep-Alive Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.8 Operation in NAT Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.9 Multiple Callout Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.10 Multiple OPES Processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.11 Support for Different Application Protocols . . . . . . . . 8 3.12 Capability and Parameter Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.13 Meta Data and Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1 Protocol Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1 Authentication, Confidentiality, and Integrity . . . . . . . 12 5.2 Hop-by-Hop Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3 Operation Across Un-trusted Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.4 Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 21 Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 1. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2]. Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 2. Introduction The Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) architecture [1] enables cooperative application services (OPES services) between a data provider, a data consumer, and zero or more OPES processors. The application services under consideration analyze and possibly transform application-level messages exchanged between the data provider and the data consumer. The execution of such services is governed by a set of rules installed on the OPES processor. The rules enforcement can trigger the execution of service applications local to the OPES processor. Alternatively, the OPES processor can distribute the responsibility of service execution by communicating and collaborating with one or more remote callout servers. As described in [1], an OPES processor communicates with and invokes services on a callout server by using a callout protocol. This document presents the requirements for such a protocol. The requirements in this document are divided into three categories - functional requirements, performance requirements, and security requirements. Each requirement is presented as one or more statements, followed by brief explanatory material as appropriate. Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 3. Functional Requirements 3.1 Reliability The OPES callout protocol MUST be able to provide ordered reliability for the communication between OPES processor and callout server. Additionally, the callout protocol SHOULD be able to provide unordered reliability. In order to satisfy the reliability requirements, the callout protocol SHOULD specify that it must be used with a transport protocol which provides ordered/unordered reliability at the transport-layer, for example TCP [6] or SCTP [7]. 3.2 Congestion Avoidance The OPES callout protocol MUST ensure that congestion avoidance that matches the standard of RFC 2914 [4] is applied on all communication between OPES processor and callout server. For this purpose, the callout protocol SHOULD use a congestion-controlled transport-layer protocol, presumably either TCP [6] or SCTP [7]. 3.3 Callout Transactions The OPES callout protocol MUST enable an OPES processor and a callout server to perform callout transactions with the purpose of exchanging partial or complete application-level protocol messages (or modifications thereof). More specifically, the callout protocol MUST enable an OPES processor to forward a partial or complete application message to a callout server so that one or more OPES services can process the forwarded application message (or parts thereof). The result of the service operation may be a modified application message. The callout protocol MUST therefore enable the callout server to return a modified application message or the modified parts of an application message to the OPES processor. Additionally, the callout protocol MUST enable a callout server to report back to the OPES processor the result of a callout transaction, e.g. in the form of a status code. A callout transaction is defined as a message exchange between an OPES processor and a callout server consisting of a callout request and a callout response. Both, the callout request as well as the callout response, MAY each consist of one or more callout protocol messages, i.e. a series of protocol messages. A callout request MUST always contain a partial or complete application message. A callout response MUST always indicate the result of the callout transaction. A callout response MAY contain a modified application message. Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 Callout transactions are always initiated by a callout request from an OPES processor and typically terminated by a callout response from a callout server. The OPES callout protocol MUST, however, also provide a mechanism that allows either endpoint of a callout transaction to terminate a callout transaction before a callout request or response has been completely received by the corresponding callout endpoint. Such a mechanism MUST ensure that a premature termination of a callout transaction does not result in the loss of application message data. A premature termination of a callout transaction is required to support OPES services which may terminate even before they have processed the entire application message. Content analysis services, for example, may be able to classify a Web object after having processed just the first few bytes of a Web object. 3.4 Callout Connections The OPES callout protocol MUST enable an OPES processor and a callout server to perform multiple callout transactions over a callout connection. Additionally, the callout protocol MUST provide a method to associate callout transactions with callout connections. A callout connection is defined as a logical connection at the application-layer between an OPES processor and a callout server. A callout connection MAY have certain parameters associated with it, for example parameters that control the fail-over behavior of connection endpoints. Callout connection-specific parameters MAY be negotiated between OPES processors and callout servers (see Section 3.12). The OPES callout protocol MAY choose to multiplex multiple callout connections over a single transport-layer connection so long as a flow control mechanism is applied which guarantees fairness among multiplexed callout connections. Callout connections MUST always be initiated by an OPES processor. A callout connection MAY be closed by either endpoint of the connection provided that doing so does not affect the normal operation of on-going callout transactions associated with the callout connection. 3.5 Asynchronous Message Exchange The OPES callout protocol MUST support an asynchronous message exchange over callout connections. In order to allow asynchronous processing on the OPES processor and callout server, it MUST be possible to separate request issuance from response processing. The protocol MUST therefore allow multiple Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 outstanding callout requests and provide a method to correlate callout responses to callout requests. Additionally, the callout protocol MUST enable a callout server to respond to a callout request before it has received the entire request. 3.6 Message Segmentation The OPES callout protocol MUST allow an OPES processor to forward an application message to a callout server in a series of smaller message fragments. The callout protocol MUST further enable the receiving callout server to re-assemble the fragmented application message. Likewise, the callout protocol MUST enable a callout server to return an application message to an OPES processor in a series of smaller message fragments. The callout protocol MUST enable the receiving OPES processor to re-assemble the fragmented application message. Depending on the application-layer protocol used on the data path, application messages may be very large in size (for example in the case of audio/video streams) or of unknown size. In both cases, the OPES processor has to initiate a callout transaction before it has received the entire application message to avoid long delays for the data consumer. The OPES processor MUST therefore be able to forward fragments or chunks of an application message to a callout server as it receives them from the data provider or consumer. Likewise, the callout server MUST be able to process and return application message fragments as it receives them from the OPES processor. Application message segmentation is also required if the OPES callout protocol provides a flow control mechanism in order to multiplex multiple callout connections over a single transport-layer connection (see Section 3.4). 3.7 Support for Keep-Alive Mechanism The OPES callout protocol MUST provide a keep-alive mechanism which, if used, would allow both endpoints of a callout connection to detect a failure of the other endpoint even in the absence of callout transactions. The callout protocol MAY specify that keep-alive messages be exchanged over existing callout connections or a separate connection between OPES processor and callout server. The callout protocol MAY also specify that the use of the keep-alive mechanism is optional. The detection of a callout server failure may enable an OPES Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 processor to establish a callout connection with a stand-by callout server so that future callout transactions do not result in the loss of application message data. The detection of the failure of an OPES processor may enable a callout server to release resources which would otherwise not be available for callout transactions with other OPES processors. 3.8 Operation in NAT Environments The OPES protocol SHOULD be NAT-friendly, i.e. its operation should not be compromised by the presence of one or more NAT devices in the path between an OPES processor and a callout server. 3.9 Multiple Callout Servers The OPES callout protocol MUST allow an OPES processor to simultaneously communicate with more than one callout server. In larger networks, OPES services are likely to be hosted by different callout servers. Therefore, an OPES processor will likely have to communicate with multiple callout servers. The protocol design MUST enable an OPES processor to do so. 3.10 Multiple OPES Processors The OPES callout protocol MUST allow a callout server to simultaneously communicate with more than one OPES processor. The protocol design MUST support a scenario in which multiple OPES processors use the services of a single callout server. 3.11 Support for Different Application Protocols The OPES callout protocol SHOULD be application protocol-agnostic, i.e. it SHOULD not make any assumptions about the characteristics of the application-layer protocol used on the data path between data provider and data consumer. At a minimum, the callout protocol MUST be compatible with HTTP [5]. The OPES entities on the data path may use different application-layer protocols, including, but not limited to, HTTP [5] and RTP [8]. It would be desirable to be able to use the same OPES callout protocol for any such application-layer protocol. 3.12 Capability and Parameter Negotiations The OPES callout protocol MUST support the negotiation of capabilities and callout connection parameters between an OPES Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 processor and a callout server. This implies that the OPES processor and the callout server MUST be able to exchange their capabilities and preferences and engage into a deterministic negotiation process at the end of which the two endpoints have either agreed on the capabilities and parameters to be used for future callout connections/transactions or determined that their capabilities are incompatible. Capabilities and parameters that could be negotiated between an OPES processor and a callout server include (but are not limited to): callout protocol version, fail-over behavior, heartbeat rate for keep-alive messages, security-related parameters etc. The callout protocol MUST NOT negotiate the transport protocol to be used for callout connections. The callout protocol MAY, however, specify that a certain application message protocol (e.g. HTTP [5], RTP [8]) requires the use of a certain transport protocol (e.g. TCP [6], SCTP [7]). Callout connection parameters may also pertain to the characteristics of OPES callout services if, for example, callout connections are associated with one or more specific OPES services. An OPES service-specific parameter may, for example, specify which parts of an application message an OPES service requires for its operation. Callout connection parameters MUST be negotiated on a per-callout connection basis and before any callout transactions are performed over the corresponding callout connection. Other parameters and capabilities, such as the fail-over behavior, MAY be negotiated between the two endpoints independently of callout connections. The parties to a callout protocol MAY use callout connections to negotiate all or some of their capabilities and parameters. Alternatively, a separate control connection MAY be used for this purpose. 3.13 Meta Data and Instructions The OPES callout protocol MUST provide a mechanism for the endpoints of a particular callout transaction to include in callout requests and responses meta data and instructions for the OPES processor or callout server. Specifically, the callout protocol MUST enable an OPES processor to include information about the forwarded application message in a callout request, e.g. in order to specify the type of the forwarded application message or to specify what part(s) of the application message are forwarded to the callout server. Likewise, the callout Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 server MUST be able to include information about the returned application message. The OPES processor MUST further be able to include an ordered list of one or more uniquely specified OPES services which are to be performed on the forwarded application message in the specified order. However, as the callout protocol MAY also choose to associate callout connections with specific OPES services, there may not be a need to identify OPES services on a per-callout transaction basis. Additionally, the OPES callout protocol MUST allow the callout server to indicate to the OPES processor the cacheability of callout responses. This implies that callout responses may have to carry cache-control instructions for the OPES processor. The OPES callout protocol MUST further enable the OPES processor to indicate to the callout server if it has kept a local copy of the forwarded application message (or parts thereof). This information enables the callout server to determine whether the forwarded application message must be returned to the OPES processor even it has not been modified by an OPES service. The OPES callout protocol MUST also allow OPES processors to comply with the tracing requirements of the OPES architecture as laid out in [1] and [3]. This implies that the callout protocol MUST enable a callout server to convey to the OPES processor information about the OPES service operations performed on the forwarded application message. Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 4. Performance Requirements 4.1 Protocol Efficiency The OPES callout protocol SHOULD be efficient in that it minimizes the additionally introduced latency, for example by minimizing the protocol overhead. As OPES callout transactions introduce additional latency to application protocol transactions on the data path, callout protocol efficiency is crucial. Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 5. Security Requirements In the absence of any security mechanisms, sensitive information might be communicated between the OPES processor and the callout server in violation of either endpoint's security and privacy policy through misconfiguration or a deliberate insider attack. By using strong authentication, message encryption, and integrity checks, this threat can be minimized to a smaller set of insiders and/or operator configuration errors. The OPES processor and the callout servers SHOULD have enforceable policies that limit the parties they communicate with, that determine the protections to use based on identities of the endpoints and other data (such as enduser policies). In order to enforce the policies, they MUST be able to authenticate the callout protocol endpoints using cryptographic methods. 5.1 Authentication, Confidentiality, and Integrity The parties to the callout protocol MUST have a sound basis for binding authenticated identities to the protocol endpoints, and they MUST verify that these identities are consistent with their security policies. The OPES callout protocol MUST provide for message authentication, confidentiality, and integrity between the OPES processor and the callout server. It MUST provide mutual authentication. For this purpose, the callout protocol SHOULD use existing security mechanisms. The callout protocol specification is not required to specify the security mechanisms, but it MAY instead refer to a lower-level security protocol and discuss how its mechanisms are to be used with the callout protocol. 5.2 Hop-by-Hop Confidentiality If end-to-end encryption is a requirement for the content path, then this confidentiality MUST be extended to the communication between the OPES processor and the callout server. While it is recommended that the communication between OPES processor and callout server always be encrypted, encryption MAY be optional if both the OPES processor and the callout server are co-located with each other in a single administrative domain with strong confidentiality guarantees. In order to minimize data exposure, the callout protocol MUST use a different encryption key for each encrypted content stream. 5.3 Operation Across Un-trusted Domains Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 The OPES callout protocol MUST operate securely across un-trusted domains between the OPES processor and the callout server. If the communication channels between the OPES processor and callout server cross outside of the organization taking responsibility for the OPES services, then endpoint authentication and message protection (confidentiality and integrity) MUST be used. 5.4 Privacy Any communication carrying information relevant to privacy policies MUST protect the data using encryption. Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 6. Security Considerations The security requirements for the OPES callout protocol are discussed in Section 5. Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 Normative References [1] Barbir, A., "An Architecture for Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES)", draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04 (work in progress), December 2002. [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [3] Floyd, S. and L. Daigle, "IAB Architectural and Policy Considerations for Open Pluggable Edge Services", RFC 3238, January 2002. [4] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC 2914, September 2000. [5] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 Informative References [6] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981. [7] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L. and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000. [8] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R. and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC 1889, January 1996. Authors' Addresses Andre Beck Lucent Technologies 101 Crawfords Corner Road Holmdel, NJ 07733 US EMail: abeck@bell-labs.com Markus Hofmann Lucent Technologies Room 4F-513 101 Crawfords Corner Road Holmdel, NJ 07733 US Phone: +1 732 332 5983 EMail: hofmann@bell-labs.com Hilarie Orman Purple Streak Development EMail: ho@alum.mit.edu URI: http://www.purplestreak.com Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 Reinaldo Penno Nortel Networks 2305 Mission College Boulevard San Jose, CA 95134 US EMail: rpenno@nortelnetworks.com Andreas Terzis Individual Consultant 150 Golf Course Dr. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 US Phone: +1 707 586 8864 EMail: aterzis@sbcglobal.net Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 Appendix A. Acknowledgments This document is based in parts on previous work by Anca Dracinschi Sailer, Volker Hilt, and Rama R. Menon. The authors would like to thank the participants of the OPES WG for their comments on this draft. Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 Appendix B. Change Log Changes from draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-02.txt o Re-ordered some sections in the functional requirements part of the draft o Clarified in Section 3.3 what callout requests and responses must/ may contain o Removed reference to explicit and implicit mechanism of terminating a callout transaction prematurely in Section 3.3 o Added reference to RFC 2914 in congestion avoidance requirement in Section 3.2 o Added language that states that existing solutions should be used to achieve congestion avoidance and ordered/unordered reliability in Section 3.2 and Section 3.1 o Clarified concept of callout connections (previously referred to as "callout channels") in Section 3.4 o Added statement about the possibility of multiplexing multiple callout connections over a transport connection to Section 3.4 o Clarified in Section 3.7 that use of a keep-alive mechanism is optional o Replaced "MUST" with "SHOULD" in OCP requirement to be application protocol-agnostic in Section 3.11, added explicit requirement to support HTTP o Removed "transport protocol" from list of callout parameters which may be negotiated, added suggestion to pick transport protocol depending on the application protocol in Section 3.12. o Explained that application message segementation is also necessary for multiplexing callout connections over transport connections in Section 3.6 o Added statement to Section 5.2 that encryption between OPES processor and callout server may be optional if they are co-located with each other in a single administrative domain Changes from draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-01.txt Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 o Reworded and clarified several statements of the draft Changes from draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-00.txt o Aligned terminology with [1] o Clarified in Section 3.13 that OCP requests not only have to identify one or more OPES services, but also the order in which the services are to be executed o Removed requirement from Section 4.1 that OCP must satisfy performance requirements of the application-layer protocol used between data consumer and provider Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols December 2002 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Beck, et al. Expires June 12, 2003 [Page 22] --------------090200070704040805030501-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 16 08:22:31 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA03921 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 08:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBGCuAQ05760 for ietf-openproxy-bks; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 04:56:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBGCu7E05756 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 04:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA03108; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 07:53:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200212161253.HAA03108@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-openproxy@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 07:53:07 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Open Pluggable Edge Services Working Group of the IETF. Title : Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols Author(s) : A. Beck et al. Filename : draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2002-12-12 This document specifies the requirements that the OPES (Open Pluggable Edge Services) callout protocol must satisfy in order to support the remote execution of OPES services. The requirements are intended to help evaluating possible protocol candidates as well as to guide the development of such protocols. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-12-12132434.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-12-12132434.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 16 08:24:37 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA04010 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 08:24:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBGCu4605752 for ietf-openproxy-bks; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 04:56:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBGCu1E05748 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 04:56:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA03089; Mon, 16 Dec 2002 07:53:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200212161253.HAA03089@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ietf-openproxy@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04.txt Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 07:53:01 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Open Pluggable Edge Services Working Group of the IETF. Title : An Architecture for Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) Author(s) : A. Barbir et al. Filename : draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2002-12-12 This memo defines an architecture that enables the creation of an application service in which a data provider, a data consumer, and zero or more application entities cooperatively implement a data stream service. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-12-12132424.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2002-12-12132424.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 18 10:14:59 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10361 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:14:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBIEsGn13143 for ietf-openproxy-bks; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 06:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from crufty.research.bell-labs.com (ns2.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.49]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBIEsFo13136 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 06:54:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-2-10.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by crufty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gBIEsFLI051759 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:54:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.160.8]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBIEs9I51130 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:54:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mhof.com (biena [135.180.160.86]) by bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19365 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:54:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E008C26.6020803@mhof.com> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:54:30 -0500 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OPES Group Subject: Re: Requirements for Rules Language References: <3DE121DA.7090704@mhof.com> In-Reply-To: <3DE121DA.7090704@mhof.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, since no one spoke up to this issue, we conclude that there's no need to add more detailed requirements for a rules specification language beyond what's already in the policies requirements draft. -Markus Markus Hofmann wrote: > > Hi, > > from the minutes of our meeting in Atlanta we've the following open issue: > > "Do we need more detailed requirements for a specification language? > Perhaps this falls out of the policy requirements draft, (implying > that we need to put more details into the policy requirements > drafts, rather than having a separate document)." > > In general, if we need more detailed requirements, I think this should > be part of the policy requirements drafts rather than having yet another > separate document. Indeed, Section 3.2 of the "Requirements for Policy, > Authorization and Enforcement" draft already spells out a few > requirements, it seems natural to extend this section if necessary. Any > thoughts on that? > > Also, please post if you've more detailed requirements for the rules > language in mind that should be written down. > > Cheers, > Markus > > From owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 18 10:23:35 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10507 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:23:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBIEvbP13758 for ietf-openproxy-bks; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 06:57:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from dirty.research.bell-labs.com (dirty.research.bell-labs.com [204.178.16.6]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBIEvao13749 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 06:57:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from scummy.research.bell-labs.com (H-135-104-2-10.research.bell-labs.com [135.104.2.10]) by dirty.research.bell-labs.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gBIEvbhN076629 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:57:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com [135.180.160.8]) by scummy.research.bell-labs.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBIEvUI51406 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:57:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from mhof.com (biena [135.180.160.86]) by bronx.dnrc.bell-labs.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19651 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:57:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E008CF0.1040206@mhof.com> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:57:52 -0500 From: Markus Hofmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OPES Group Subject: Re: Call for Comments on OPES Drafts References: <3DE1242C.2010408@mhof.com> In-Reply-To: <3DE1242C.2010408@mhof.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openproxy@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, since no comments came back from the list on those two drafts, we'll tune them a little bit and then issue WG last call shortly. I'd expect that any issues with the drafts will be raised NOW - please post to the list NOW. Thanks, -Markus Markus Hofmann wrote: > > Hi, > > as mentioned in Atlanta, we want to wrap-up and finish our two WG drafts on > > "Security Threats and Risks for Open Pluggable Edge Services" > > and on > > "Requirements for Policy, Authorization and Enforcement of OPES > Services" > > *very* quickly and submit them to the IESG. However, it is really hard > to believe that no one has to say anything about the drafts in their > current form... > > As such, consider this a formal request for comments on those two > drafts, please read them carefully and post any comments/suggestions you > might have to the mailing list! > > We intend to consider feedback coming back until shortly after > Thanksgiving, then publish new versions of those two rafts and issue WG > last call following immediatelly. As such, I'd expect that issues with > the currrent draft versions will be raised *before* we publish the new > ones after Thanksgiving! > > Thanks, > Markus > >