Network Working Group A. Barbir
Internet-Draft Nortel Networks
Expires: March 18, 2004 September 18, 2003
OPES processor and end points communications
draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-02
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 March 18, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo documents tracing requirements for Open Pluggable Edge
Services (OPES).
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. OPES Domain and OPES System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. OPES Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable
Entities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Requirements for OPES processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Requirements for callout servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Privacy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1 Tracing and Trust Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. How to Support Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1 Tracing and OPES System Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2 Requirements for In-Band Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2.1 Tracing Information Granularity and Persistence levels
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3 Protocol Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Tracing Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1 Single OPES Processor: Detailed Trace . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2 Single OPES Processor: Partial Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.3 Multiple OPES Processors: Full Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.4 Multiple OPES Processors: Partial Trace . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Optional Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 25
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
1. Introduction
The Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) architecture [8] 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 [8], an OPES processor
communicates with and invokes services on a callout server by using a
callout protocol.
The work specify the requirements for providing tracing functionality
for the OPES architecture [8]. This document specifies tracing
mechanisms that the OPES architecture could provide that enable data
provider application to detect inappropriate client centric actions
by OPES entities. The work focus on developing tracing requirements
that can be used to fulfill the notification and Non-Blocking
requirements [2].
In the OPES architecture document [8], there is a requirement of
relaying tracing information in-band. This work investigates this
possibility and discusses possible methods that could be used to
detect faulty OPES processors or callout servers by end points in an
OPES flow.
The document is organized as follows: Section 2 defines OPES Domain
and OPES System. Section 3 discusses entities that are traceable in
an OPES Flow. Sections 4 and 5 discuss tracing requirements for OPES
systems and callout servers. Section 6 focus on Tracing and Trust
Domains. Section 7 discusses how to support tracing and provides uses
cases. Section 8 provides some examples of traces. Section 9 examines
Optional Notification. Section 9 looks into IANA considerations.
Section 10 examines security considerations.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
2. OPES Domain and OPES System
This sections clarifies the terms OPES system and OPES Domain [8].
These terms are needed in order to define what is traceable in an
OPES Flow [8].
An OPES domain describes the collection of OPES entities that a
single provider operates. OPES domains can be based on trust or other
operational boundaries. All entities of an "OPES Domain" MUST be in
the same trust domain. This would be independent of any specific OPES
Flow.
An OPES system consists of a limited set of OPES entities, parts of a
single or of multiple OPES domains, organized by (or on behalf) of
either a data provider application or a data consumer application to
perform authorized services on a given application message. Each OPES
entity in an OPES system MUST be directly addressable at the IP level
by a data consumer application.
An OPES system can be formed in a recursive manner. An OPES system
can start with either a data provider application or a data consumer
application (for a given message). The OPES system then includes any
OPES entity trusted by (accepting authority from) an entity that is
already in the OPES system. The trust and authority delegation is
viewed in the context of the given application message.
As implied by the above definition, some OPES entities in the system
MAY not participate in the processing of a given message.
An OPES domain MUST not be an OPES sub-system. An OPES domain MUST
require external resources to provide services. An OPES domain is a
part of an OPES system belonging to a given operator. OPES domains
have no incidence on the structure of an OPES system, but they may
influence its organization for different reasons such as security,
payment, quality of service, delivery parameters among others.
In Figure 1 an OPES Flow is shown that traverses across various OPES
Domains starting from a data provider application. A data consumer
application MUST be able to receive tracing information on per
message basis that enable it to determine the set of transformations
that were performed on the data for a particular OPES Flow. The
formation of an OPES Flow can be static or dynamic, meaning that the
determination of which OPES Domains will participate in a given OPES
Flow (per message basis) can be a function of business arrangements.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
+------------------------------------------+
| Data Consumer Application |
+------------------------------------------+
^
|
+-------------------------------------------+
| OPES System | O |
| | |
| +-------------------------+ | P |
| | OPES Domain | | |
| | +---------------+ | | E |
| | | OPES Entity | | | |
| | +---------------+ | | S |
| | . | | |
| | . | | |
| | +---------------+ | | F |
| | |Callout Server | | | |
| | +---------------+ | | L |
| | | | |
| +-------------------------+ | O |
| . | |
| . | W |
| +-------------------------+ | |
| | OPES Domain | | |
| | +---------------+ | | |
| | | OPES Entity | | | |
| | +---------------+ | | |
| | . | | |
| | . | | |
| | +---------------+ | | |
| | | OPES Entity | | | |
| | +---------------+ | | |
| +-------------------------+ | |
| v |
| +-----------------------------------+ |
| | Data Provider Application | |
| +-----------------------------------+ |
| |
+-------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: OPES System
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
3. OPES Tracing
Before discussing what is traceable in an OPES flow, it is beneficial
to define what tracing means. Tracing is defined as the inclusion of
necessary information within a message in an OPES flow that could be
used to identify the set of transformations or adaptations that have
been performed on its content in an OPES System before its delivery
to an end point (for example, the data consumer application).
o OPES trace: application message information about OPES entities in
an OPES System that adapted that message.
o OPES tracing: the process of including, manipulating, and
interpreting an OPES trace in an OPES System.
To emphasize, the above definition means that OPES tracing SHOULD be
performed on per message basis. Trace format is dependent on the
application protocol that is being adapted by OPES. Data consumer
application can use OPES trace to infer the actions that have been
performed by the OPES system. The architecture document requires [8]
that tracing be supported in-band.
In an OPES System the task of providing tracing information, must
take into account the following considerations:
o Providers may be hesitant to reveal information about their
internal network infrastructure.
o Within a service provider network, OPES processors may be
configured to use non-routable, private IP addresses.
o A Data consumer applications would prefer to have a single point
of contact regarding the trace information.
3.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow?
This section focuses on identifying the traceable entities in an OPES
Flow. Tracing information MUST be able to provide a data consumer
application with useful information without tracing the exact OPES
Processor or callout servers that adapted the data. It is up to the
OPES service provider to have maintained appropriate internal
detailed traces to find the answer to the data consumer applications
inquiry.
At the implementation level, for a given trace, an OPES entity
involved in handling the corresponding application message is
"traceable" or "traced" if information about it appears in that
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
trace. OPES entities have different levels of traceability
requirements. Specifically,
o An OPES system MUST add its entry to the trace.
o An OPES processor SHOULD add its entry to the trace.
o An OPES service SHOULD add its entry to the trace.
o An OPES entity MAY manage trace information from entities that are
under its control. For example, an OPES processor may add or
remove callout service entries in order to manage the size of a
trace. Other considerations include:
* The OPES processor MAY have a fixed configuration that enable
it to respond to tracing inquires.
* The OPES processor MAY insert a summary of the services that it
controls. The summary can be used to respond to tracing
inquiries.
* The OPES processor MAY package tracing information related to
the entities that it control based on the policy of a given
OPES System.
From an OPES context, a good tracing approach is similar to a trouble
ticket ready for submission to a known address. The trace in itself
is not necessarily a detailed description of what has happened. It is
the responsibility of the operator to resolve the problems.
3.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable Entities?
The requirements for information as related to entities that are
traceable in an OPES flow are:
o The privacy policy at the time it dealt with the message
o Identification of the party responsible for setting and enforcing
that policy
o Information pointing to a technical contact
o Information that identifies, to the technical contact, the OPES
processors involved in processing the message.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
4. Requirements for OPES processors
In order to facilitate compliance, the concept of an "OPES system"
being traceable, requires that each OPES processor MUST support
tracing. Policy can be set that defines which domain has
authorization to turn on tracing and its granularity. An OPES
provider can have its private policy for trace information, but it
MUST support tracing mechanisms and it MUST reveal its policy.
The requirements for OPES processors that are applicable to tracing
are:
o Each OPES processor MUST belong to a single OPES Domain.
o Each OPES processor MUST have a Unique Identity in that Domain.
o Each OPES processor MUST support tracing, policy can be used to
turn tracing on and to determine its granularity.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
5. Requirements for callout servers
In an OPES system, it is the task of an OPES processor to add trace
records to application messages. In this case, the callout servers
that uses the OCP protocol [5] are not affected by tracing
requirements. In order for an OCP protocol to be tracing neutral, an
OPES processor in an OPES system MUST be able to meet the following
requirements:
o Callout services adapt payload regardless of the application
protocol in use and leave header adjustment to OPES processor.
o OPES processor SHOULD be able to trace it's own invocation and
service(s) execution since they understand the application
protocol.
o Callout servers MAY be able to add their own OPES trace records
to application level messages.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
6. Privacy considerations
6.1 Tracing and Trust Domains
A trust domain may include several OPES systems and entities. Within
a trust domain, there MUST be at least support for one trace entry
per OPES system. Entities outside of that system may or may not see
any traces, depending on domain policies or configuration. For
example, if an OPES system is on the content provider "side",
end-users are not guaranteed any traces. If an OPES system is working
inside end-user domain, the origin server is not guaranteed any
traces related to user requests.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
7. How to Support Tracing
In order to support tracing, the following aspects must be addressed:
o There MUST be a System Identifier that identify a domain that is
employing an OPES system.
o An OPES processor MUST be able to be uniquely identified (MUST
have an Identifier) within a system.
o An OPES processor SHOULD add its identification to the trace.
o An OPES processor SHOULD add to the trace identification of every
callout service that received the application message.
o If the policy in an OPES system requires an OPES processor to turn
tracing on, then the OPES processor MUST add to the trace
identification of the "system or entity" it belongs to. "System"
ID MUST make it possible to access "system" privacy policy.
o An OPES processor MAY group the above information for sequential
trace entries having the same "system/entity" ID. In other words,
trace entries produced within the same "system or entity" MAY be
merged or aggregated into a single less detailed trace entry.
o An OPES processor MAY delegate trace management to a callout
service within the same "system or entity".
7.1 Tracing and OPES System Granularity
There are two distinct uses of traces. First, a trace SHOULD enable
the "end (content producer or consumer) to detect OPES processor
presence within end's trust domain. Such "end" should be able to see
a trace entry, but does not need to be able to interpret it beyond
identification of the trust domain(s).
Second, the domain administrator SHOULD be able to take a trace entry
(possibly supplied by an "end? as an opaque string) and interpret it.
The administrator must be able to identify OPES processor(s) involved
and may be able to identify applied adaptation services along with
other message-specific information. That information SHOULD help to
explain what OPES entities were involved and the actions that they
performed. It may be impractical to provide all the required
information in all cases. This document view a trace record as a
hint, as opposed to an exhaustive audit.
Since the administrators of various trust domains can have various
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
ways of looking into tracing, they MAY require the choice of freedom
in what to put in trace records and how to format them. Trace records
should be easy to extend beyond basic OPES requirements. Trace
management algorithms should treat trace records as opaque data to
the extent possible.
It is not expected that entities in one trust domain to be able to
get all OPES-related feedback from entities in other trust domains.
For example, if an end-user suspects that a service was corrupted by
a callout service, then, there is no guarantee that the user will be
able to identify that service, contact its owner, or debug it, unless
the service is within its trust domain. This is no different from the
current situation where it is impossible, in general, to know the
contact person for an application on an origin server that generates
corrupted HTML; and even if the person is known, one should not
expect that person to respond to end-user queries.
7.2 Requirements for In-Band Tracing
The OPES architecture [8] states that traces must be in-band. The
support of this design goal is dependent on the specifics of the
message application level protocol that is being used in an OPES
flow. In-band tracing limits the type of application protocols that
OPES can support. The details of what a trace record can convey is
also dependent on the choice of the application level protocol.
For these reasons, this work documents requirements for application
protocols that need to support OPES traces. However, the architecture
does not prevent implementers of developing out-of-band protocols and
techniques to address the above limitation.
7.2.1 Tracing Information Granularity and Persistence levels
Requirements
In order to be able to trace entities that have acted on an
application message in an OPES flow, there may be requirements to
keep information that is related to the following:
o Message-related information: All data that describes specific
actions performed on the message SHOULD be provided with that
message, as there is no other way to find message level details at
a later stage.
o Session related information: Session level data MUST be preserved
for the duration of the session. OPES processor is responsible for
inserting notifications if session-level information changes.
o End-point related data: What profile is activated? Where to get
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
profile details? Where to set preferences?
7.3 Protocol Binding
The task of adding tracing information is application protocol
specific. Separate documents will address HTTP and other protocols.
This work documents what tracing information is required and some
common tracing elements.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
8. Tracing Examples
This section provides some examples of tracing that could be
generated by an OPES System. The examples are based on HTTP [3] and
use HTTP extension headers as given in [6]. In [6] trace entries are
supplied using HTTP extension message headers. These headers are
defined using #list constructs. A valid HTTP message may contain
multiple entries of each header. In an OPES Systems, these headers
MUST be used to represent the trace entries.
In [6], the following HTTP extensions are defined:
OPES-System = "OPES-System" ":" #trace-entry
OPES-Processor = "OPES-Processor" ":" #trace-entry
OPES-Service = "OPES-Service" ":" #trace-entry
trace-entry = opes-agent-id *( ";" parameter )
opes-agent-id = absoluteURI
8.1 Single OPES Processor: Detailed Trace
This example consider the case of an OPES System consisting of a
single OPES Processor that is capable of locally performing three
OPES services. A data consumer application may receive the following
HTTP response message header after OPES adaptations have been
applied:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT
Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT
Content-type: application/octet-stream
OPES-System: http://www.example-opes-systemA.com/
opes?session=ac79a7901549f56
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-systemA.com /?sid=123
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-systemA.com /cat/?sid=124
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-systemA.com /cat/?sid=125
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
In this example, the trace has identified the OPES System and all the
OPES services that were performed on the data consumer application
original request.
8.2 Single OPES Processor: Partial Trace
In this example, the OPES System consisting of a two OPES Processor.
Each Processor is capable of locally performing many OPES services. A
data consumer application may receive the following HTTP response
message header after OPES adaptations have been applied:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT
Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT
Content-type: application/octet-stream
OPES-System: http://www.example-opes-systemA.com/
opes?session=ac79a7901549f56
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-systemA.com /?sid=123
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-systemA.com /cat/?sid=124 ;
Mode = Aggregate
In this example, several OPES services may be performed on the
request. However, the trace has one entry that fully identifies one
service and the other services are identified through a common ID.
The OPES system is expected to be able to detail the other services
when queried by the data consumer application.
8.3 Multiple OPES Processors: Full Trace
In this example, the OPES System consisting of a two OPES Processors.
Each processor is capable of locally performing two OPES services. A
data consumer application may receive the following HTTP response
message header after OPES adaptations have been applied:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT
Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT
Content-type: application/octet-stream
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
OPES-System: http://www.example-opes-systemA.com/
opes?session=ac79a7901549f56
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-Service-Provider1.com /cat/
?sid=123
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-Service-Provider1.com /cat/
?sid=124
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-Service-Provider2.com /xxx/
?sid=111
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-Service-Provider2.com /xxx/
?sid=112
In this example, the trace has identified the OPES System and all the
OPES services that were performed on the data consumer application
original request.
8.4 Multiple OPES Processors: Partial Trace
In this example, the OPES System consisting of a two OPES Processors.
Each processor is capable of locally performing several OPES
services. A data consumer application may receive the following HTTP
response message header after OPES adaptations have been applied:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 06:25:24 GMT
Last-Modified: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 04:58:08 GMT
Content-type: application/octet-stream
OPES-System: http://www.example-opes-systemA.com/
opes?session=ac79a7901549f56
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-Service-Provider1.com /cat/
?sid=123
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-Service-Provider1.com /cat/
?sid=124 ; Mode A
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-Service-Provider2.com /xxx/
?sid=111
OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-Service-Provider2.com /xxx/
?sid=112 ; Mode B
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
In this example, several OPES services may be performed on the
request. However, the trace partially indicates the services that
were performed. The OPES system is expected to be able to detail the
other services when queried by the data consumer application.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
9. Optional Notification
This section examines IAB [2] considerations (3.1) and (3.2)
regarding notification in an OPES architecture.
Notification propagates in opposite direction of tracing and cannot
be attached to the application messages that it notifies about.
Notification can be done out-band and may require the development of
a new protocol. The direction of data flow for tracing and
notification are depicted in Figure 2.
Notification
+-----------------------------------------------
| |
| V
+---------------+ +-------+ +---------------+
| | | | | Data Provider |
| Data Consumer | Tracing | OPES |<----->| Application |
| Application |<-----------| | +---------------+
+---------------+ +-------+
^
|OCP
|
V
+---------+
| Callout |
| Server |
+---------+
Figure 2: Notification Flow
In [9] it was argued that Notification is an expensive approach for
providing tracing information. However, the current work does not
prevent an OPES System from publishing policy and specifications that
allow Optional Notification. For example, an OPES System can adopt a
mechanism that uses a flag that would allow a data consumer and a
data provider application to signal to each other that they are
interested to receive an explicit notification if an OPES service is
applied to a specific message. The value of this optional flag/field
can be a URI that identifies notification method plus parameters. If
a processor understands the method, it would be able to further
decode the field and send a notification. The specification of the
field name and format for an application protocol can be stated in
the associated binding document. The details of the notification
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
protocol is beyond the scope of this document.
For example, the following HTTP header:
OPES-Notify: URI *(pname=pvalue)
Or,
My-OPES-Notify: foo=bar q=0.5
can be used.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
10. IANA considerations
This work does not require any IANA consideration since any actions
will be addressed in [6].
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
11. Security Considerations
The security considerations for OPES are documented in [7]. This
document is a requirement document for tracing and as such does not
develop any new protocols that require security considerations.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
Normative References
[1] A. Barbir et al., "OPES Use Cases and Deployment Scenarios",
Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-opes-scenarios-01.txt, Auguest 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] A. Barbir et al., "Policy, Authorization and Enforcement
Requirements of OPES", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-authorization-02.txt, February
2003.
[5] Rousskov, A., "OPES Callout Protocol Core", Internet-Draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-opes-ocp-core-01.txt, August 2003.
[6] Rousskov, A., "HTTP adaptation with OPES", Internet-Draft TBD,
September 2003.
[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-02.txt, February 2003.
[8] A. Barbir et al., "An Architecture for Open Pluggable Edge
Services (OPES)", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04, December 2002.
[9] A. Barbir et al., "OPES Treatment of IAB Considerations",
Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-opes-iab-01.txt, February 2004.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
Informative References
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
Author's Address
Abbie Barbir
Nortel Networks
3500 Carling Avenue
Nepean, Ontario K2H 8E9
Canada
Phone: +1 613 763 5229
EMail: abbieb@nortelnetworks.com
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Several people has contributed to this work. Many thanks to: Alex
Rousskov, Hilarie Orman, Oscar Batuner, Markus Huffman, Martin
Stecher, Marshall Rose and Reinaldo Penno.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
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 (2003). 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 Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft OPES processor and end points communications September 2003
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Barbir Expires March 18, 2004 [Page 26]
