Internet Engineering Task Force R. Erickson
INTERNET DRAFT Intel Corporation
Expires: August 2001 H. Orman
Novell
OPES Network Taxonomy
draft-erickson-opes-taxonomy-00.txt
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.
Abstract
This document presents the different models for deployment of OPES
boxes. This document will attempt to clarify the different
owners/users of an OPES box in order to provide a framework for
discussing our observed services, trust relationships and working
environments. Hopefully, this document will give a common framework
for discussing and defining policy issues for networks using OPES
boxes.
[Page 1]
Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo..................................................1
Abstract.............................................................1
Table of Contents....................................................2
1. Introduction......................................................3
2. OPES Use..........................................................5
2.1 Content Provider and Hosting ISP.................................5
2.2 CDN Service......................................................5
2.3 Access ISP.......................................................6
2.4 Client...........................................................6
2.5 Proposed Questions...............................................6
4. Intellectual Property.............................................7
5. Acknowledgments...................................................7
6. References........................................................7
7. Disclaimer........................................................7
8. Author's Address..................................................8
9. Full Copyright Statement..........................................8
Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 2]
Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001
1. Introduction
There have been several example uses of OPES boxes (e.g. those found in
draft-beck-opes-esfnep-01.txt) that often imply very different
operating environments for the OPES box. In general, the current
working model of the Internet would place proxy boxes under four
different owners (and therefore three different usage models).
The primary owners identified are: Content Provider (or origin
websites), Content Delivery Networks (CDN), Clients, and of course
ISPÆs providing both access for a client and hosting for a Content
Provider. Here is a diagram of this framework.
<========= Content Oriented # Browser Oriented ================>
#
+----------+ +---------+ # +-------------+ +-------------+
| Content | | CDN | # | Access | | Client |
| Provider |--->| |---#-->| ISP |--->| |
| | | | # | | | |
|(web |<---| (cache |<--#---|(cache |<---|(fwd |
| srv)(rev | | arrays)| # | arrays)(fwd | | pxy) (client|
| pxy)| | | # | pxy)| | apps)|
+----------+ +---------+ # +-------------+ +-------------+
#
INBOUND <====================#=======================> OUTBOUND
Any of the proxy or cache boxes may be a OPES box, as well as several
boxes not shown û however, any others will most likely also be owned by
one of the 5 parties.
This diagram still does not show any possible remote callout servers
(e.g. iCAP servers) that may exist. Also note that this shows
ownership rather than location û i.e. a CDN will often have cache
arrays co-located at an ISP. And, of course, there are several
examples of a single entity playing multiple roles (e.g. AOL acting as
a Content Provider, Hosting ISP, CDN and Access ISP).
The dividing line represents a likely point of separation of services
being offered specifically for either the Client or Content Provider.
For instance, the Access ISP is likely to offer content filtering or
virus checking to their customers (the clients) where the Hosting ISP
or CDN would have no reason to offer these services, since their
customer would be the Content Provider.
Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 3]
Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001
One other limitation is this diagram shows the Internet as it öisö,
rather than how it öwill beö (though, perhaps ômay beö would be a
better term). In the future we will quite likely see a simpler model
more along the lines of cable television, with a small set of Content
Providers, and companies acting as both distributors and access
provider, and in fact even owning the browsing equipment for the
client. This would, in fact, look more like this:
+----------+
| +----------+ +------------------------------------+
| | +----------+ | Distributor |
| | | Content | | +------+ |
| | | Provider |--------->| (rev (cache (fwd |+------+ |
| | | | | pxy) arrays) pxy) +|+------+ |
| | |(web |<---------| +|client| |
+-| | srv)(rev | | +------+ |
+-| pxy)| +------------------------------------+
+----------+
In any event, this represents a fairly complete set of possible proxy-
points where an OPES extension could be installed.
Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 4]
Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001
2. OPES Use
Now that there is a breakdown of the concerned parties, the services
that each OPES box owner will likely use or provide can be identified.
The following table shows the example services provided by draft-beck-
opes-esfnep-01.txt, and the parties that would likely offer them:
Content CDN Access Client
Provider Service ISP
and
Hosting
ISP
Virus Scanning X X
Insertion of Ad Banners X X X
Insertion of Regional
Data X X
Caching of
Personalized/Customized X X
Web Pages
Content Adaptation for
Alternate Web Access X X X
Devices
Limited Client
Bandwidth Adaptation X X X
Adaptation of Streaming X
Media X
Request Filtering X X
Request Filtering
through Content X
Analysis
Creation of User X X X
Profiles
Search Engine Index on
Cached Web Pages X X X
Language Translation X X X X
This table was built using the following assumptions about the concerns
and priorities of the owners of the OPES boxes.
2.1 Content Provider and Hosting ISP
OPES Boxes owned by the Content Provider or the Hosting ISP will most
likely be under the Content ProviderÆs control, or will at least be
providing services for the Content Provider.
2.2 CDN Service
OPES Boxes owned by the CDN (or a set of CDNÆs in a peering
relationship) will be setup to handle content for their customers (the
content providers), and therefore will probably have features for the
Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 5]
Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001
content providers, along with any service they can add for the CDNÆs
own revenue.
2.3 Access ISP
Currently, it is unlikely that OPES Boxes owned by an Access ISP would
provide services for the Content Provider (or CDN), due to the
proliferation of ISPÆs and the large number of service agreements that
would have to be reached.
Therefore, the Access ISP will be using OPES boxes for services for
their own revenue (Ad banners), and for services they could provide
their customers (Virus Scanning, Filtering, et al), but also for
services they could provide selected content providers (Bandwidth
adaptation, Regional data, User profiles, et al).
2.4 Client
OPES Boxes owned by the ClientÆs themselves (primarily corporate
enterprises, libraries, internet cafes, etc) will offer services
oriented only towards the clients.
2.5 Proposed Questions
The document was created primarily to setup a framework for discussing
OPES services and how they would be used. However, here are a few of
the questions do present themselves:
1. What trust relationships must exist?
. Are all modules loaded by an administration box controlled by
the OPES box owner.
.
2. What security measures must exist?
. If security measures (such as AAA) are in place, to whom are we
providing secure access for? Only the owner of the box, or
would other trusted parties have access?
3. Is there any limit on functionality for proxylets from outside
sources?
. Sandboxing a java-based proxylet to disallow file access or
socket connections.
. Disallowing access to remote callout servers outside of the
domain.
4. Are there other frameworks that are currently in place or soon
will be?
5. How do we provide standardized accounting across ownership
domains?
. E.g. an ISP or CDN providing æpage hitÆ counts to a Content
Provider.
. E.g. the usage of an OPES proxylet.
. Would this simply be a set of services implemented on OPES, or
must OPES address this directly? Perhaps a set of services
could be provided by OPES to facilitate accounting.
Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 6]
Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001
4. Intellectual Property
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 his
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 implementers 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.
5. Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Michael Condry, Lily Yang, Christian
Maciocco and Manasi Bhutani for their contributions to this OPES
ownership model.
6. References
[1] Tomlinson, G., and al., ôExtensible Proxy Services Frameworkö,
Internet-Draft work in progress.
[2] Yang, L., and al., ôOPES Architecture for Rule Processing and
Service Executionö, Internet-Draft work in progress.
[3] Beck, A., and M. Hofmann, "Proxy Specification Rule Language",
Internet-Draft work in progress.
[4] Maciocco, C., and al., " OPES Meta-data Markup Language û
OMML ", Internet-Draft work in progress.
7. Disclaimer
The views and specification herein are those of the authors and are not
necessarily those of their employer. The authors and their employer
specifically disclaim responsibility for any problems arising from
correct or incorrect implementation or use of this specification.
Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 7]
Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001
8. Author's Address
Robert Erickson
Intel Corporation
MS JF3-206
2111 NE 25th Ave.
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Phone: +1-503-712-2016
E-Mail: Rob.Erickson@intel.com
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it maybe 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 then English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THEINTERNET ENGINEERING TASK
FORCE DISCLIAMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMAITON HEREIN WILL NOT
INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTEIS OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 8]