Subject: Updated Stawman OPES Charter

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:25:40 -0400

Folks,

below and updated strawman charter based on discussions so far. Hope I 
catched the discussion topics.

-Markus

================================================

Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
-----------------------------------

Chair(s):
Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>

Applications Area Director(s):
Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Scott Hollenbeck <[email-masked]>

Applications Area Advisor:
Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>

Technical Advisor(s):
Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Hilarie Orman <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: [email-masked]
Archive: http://www.imc.org/ietf-openproxy/mail-archive/

Description of Working Group:
The Internet facilitates the development of networked services at the 
application level that both offload origin servers and improve the 
user experience. Web proxies, for example, are commonly deployed to 
provide services such as Web caching, virus scanning, and request 
filtering. Lack of standardized mechanisms to trace and to control 
such intermediaries causes problems with respect to failure detection, 
data integrity, privacy, and security.

The OPES Working Group has previously developed an architectural 
framework to authorize, invoke, and trace such application-level 
services. The framework follows a one-party consent model, which 
requires that each service be authorized explicitly by at least one of 
the application-layer endpoints. It further requires that OPES 
services are reversible by mutual agreement of the application endpoints.

In particular, the WG has developed a protocol suite for invocation 
and tracking of OPES services inside the net. The protocol suite 
includes a generic, application-agnostic protocol core (OCP Core) that 
is supplemented by profiles specific to the application-layer protocol 
used between the endpoints. So far, the WG has specified an OCP 
profile for HTTP, which supports OPES services that operate on HTTP 
messages.

In a next step, the WG will specify one or more OCP profiles that will 
support applications operating on SMTP messages. In particular, the 
profile to be specified will enable an OPES processor to encapsulate 
and forward SMTP messages (or parts thereof) to a callout server for 
additional processing. Several kinds of agents participate in SMTP 
exchanges, including MSA, MTA, MDA, and MUA. The first OCP/SMTP 
profile will address the needs of at least the XXX SMTP agent. More 
profiles may be needed to address other agent-specific needs.

In addition, the WG will define a rules language to control selection 
and invocation of services by an OPES processor. Defining language(s) 
for implementing OPES services is out of the WG scope. The rules 
language will be based on previous work of the WG on a rule language 
named "P". The working group will have a design goal that the method 
be compatible with existing policy work within the IETF (e.g. IETF 
Policy Framework)and be able to interface with systems automating 
distribution of policies to multiple endpoints. It will be out of 
scope for this WG to develop the policy framework and specify 
multiple-endpoint policy distribution.

The group's new work items can be listed as:

- Define a SMTP profile(s) to supplement OCP core.
- Define a rules language to control the selection and
   invocation of HTTP-based or SMTP-based OPES services.

Each deliverable must follow the previously developed OPES 
architecture. As each deliverable is developed, it must address the 
IAB considerations specified in RFC 3238.

Goals and Milestones:

Done    Submit OPES scenarios document and architecture
         document to IESG for Informational.
Done    Submit document on protocol (callout and tracing)
         requirements to IESG for Informational.
Done    Submit document on endpoint authorization and
         enforcement requirements to IESG for Informational.
Done    Submit document on threat/risk model for OPES
         services to IESG for Informational.
Done    Initial protocol document for OPES services
         including their authorization, invocation,
         tracking, and enforcement of authorization.
Done    Initial document on rules specification method.
Done    Submit protocol document for OPES services
         including their authorization, invocation,
         tracking, and enforcement of authorization to IESG
         for Proposed Standard.
SEP04   Initial document on OPES rules language
NOV04   Initial document on SMTP adaptation profile for XXX
         agent and possibly other agents.
NOV04   Decision on what other SMTP agents, if any, the WG
         should work on.

FEB05   Submit document on SMTP adaptation profile for XXX
         agent and possibly other agents.
MAR05   Submit document(s) on SMTP adaptation profile(s)
         for those other agents the WG has decided to work
         on, if any.
MAY05   Submit document on OPES rules language to
         IESG for Proposed Standard

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:36:04 -0600 (MDT)

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:

> named "P".

> The working group will have a design goal that the method be
> compatible with existing policy work within the IETF

s/the method/the language/

Other than that, and the pending MIME/SMTP issue, the revision looks
good!

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:13:20 -0400

> s/the method/the language/

Thanks, made that change.

> Other than that, and the pending MIME/SMTP issue, the revision looks

We're getting close...

Thanks,
   Markus

---

From: Geetha Manjunath <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:32:52 +0530

Looks good now.

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:07:45 -0600 (MDT)

Has anybody looked at potential SMTP-work overlap with LEMONADE WG?
They seem to focus on IMAP, but their problem is what OPES solutions
are supposed to solve:

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/lemonade-charter.html
Lemonade is tasked to provide a set of enhancements and profiles of
Internet email submission, transport, and retrieval protocols to
facilitate operation on platforms with constrained resources, or
communications links with high latency or limited bandwidth.

Are there any other WG with similar work items? LEMONADE charter
mentions: VPIM, FAX, and IMAPEXT IETF working groups.

Should we make sure we are not stepping on other WG toes? How? Or will
our AD insure that, once we have a polished charter?

Thanks,

Alex.

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:38:31 -0400

I chatted with Eric Burger (Co-Chair of lemonde) a while back on this 
topic, and the feeling was that there's no overlap or no major one. 
Looks like lemonade is focused mainly on IMAP.

[I've copied Eric on this email. Eric - do you hav any thoughts?]

The fax working group was mentioned several times, so we'll also have 
to have a look there.

I would suggest we polish our proposed re-charter, and then work with 
Ted and the Chairs of the respective group to make sure that there's 
no overlap.

-Markus