draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-00.txt   draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-01.txt 
Network Working Group A. Barbir Network Working Group A. Barbir
Internet-Draft Nortel Networks Internet-Draft Nortel Networks
Expires: December 10, 2003 June 11, 2003 Expires: March 12, 2004 September 12, 2003
OPES processor and end points communications OPES processor and end points communications
draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-00 draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-01
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 30 skipping to change at page 1, line 30
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 10, 2003. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 12, 2004.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This memo documents tracing requirements for Open Pluggable Edge This memo documents tracing requirements for Open Pluggable Edge
Services (OPES). Services (OPES).
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. OPES Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. OPES Domain and OPES System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. OPES Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable 3.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Entities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable
3. Requirements for OPES systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Entities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Requirements for OPES processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Requirements for OPES processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Requirements for callout servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Requirements for callout servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Privacy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Privacy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1 Tracing and Trust Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1 Tracing and Trust Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. How to Support Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. How to Support Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1 Tracing and OPES System Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1 Tracing and OPES System Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2 Requirements for In-Band Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.2 Requirements for In-Band Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2.1 Tracing Information Granularity and Persistence levels 7.2.1 Tracing Information Granularity and Persistence levels
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3 Protocol Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.3 Protocol Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.4 Tracing scenarios and examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.4 Tracing scenarios and examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IAB considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Optional Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1 Notification Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1.1 Addressing IAB Consideration 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1.2 Addressing IAB Consideration 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 21
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) architecture [8] enables The Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) architecture [8] enables
cooperative application services (OPES services) between a data cooperative application services (OPES services) between a data
provider, a data consumer, and zero or more OPES processors. The provider, a data consumer, and zero or more OPES processors. The
application services under consideration analyze and possibly application services under consideration analyze and possibly
transform application-level messages exchanged between the data transform application-level messages exchanged between the data
provider and the data consumer. provider and the data consumer.
skipping to change at page 3, line 37 skipping to change at page 3, line 37
by OPES entities. The work focus on developing tracing requirements by OPES entities. The work focus on developing tracing requirements
that can be used to fulfil the notification and Non-Blocking that can be used to fulfil the notification and Non-Blocking
requirements [2]. requirements [2].
In the OPES architecture document [8], there is a requirement of In the OPES architecture document [8], there is a requirement of
relaying tracing information in-band. This work investigates this relaying tracing information in-band. This work investigates this
possibility and discusses possible methods that could be used to possibility and discusses possible methods that could be used to
detect faulty OPES processors or callout servers by end points in an detect faulty OPES processors or callout servers by end points in an
OPES flow. OPES flow.
The document is organized as follows: ....... 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 examines Optional Notofication. Section 9 looks
into IANA considerations. Section 10 examines security
considerations.
2. OPES Tracing 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 elements 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 operators 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 on 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. A data consumer application MUST be able to recive tracing
information on per message basis that enable it to determine the set
of transformations that were perfomed 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.
+------------------------------------------+
| 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
3. OPES Tracing
Before discussing what is traceable in an OPES flow, it is beneficial Before discussing what is traceable in an OPES flow, it is beneficial
to define what tracing means. Tracing is defined as the inclusion of to define what tracing means. Tracing is defined as the inclusion of
necessary information within a message in an OPES flow that could be necessary information within a message in an OPES flow that could be
used to identify the set of transformations or adpatations that have used to identify the set of transformations or adpatations that have
been performed on its content before its delivery to an end point been performed on its content in an OPES System before its delivery
(the data consumer application). to an end point (the data consumer application).
o OPES trace: application message information about OPES entities o OPES trace: application message information about OPES entities in
that adapted that message an OPES System that adapted that message.
o OPES tracing: the process of including, manipulating, and o OPES tracing: the process of including, manipulating, and
interpreting an OPES trace interpreting an OPES trace in an OPES System.
To emphasize, the above definition means that OPES tracing SHOULD be To emphasize, the above definition means that OPES tracing SHOULD be
performed on per message basis. Trace format is dependent on the performed on per message basis. Trace format is dependent on the
application protocol being adapted by OPES. Data consumer application application protocol that is being adapted by OPES. Data consumer
can use OPES trace to infer the actions that have been performed by application can use OPES trace to infer the actions that have been
OPES system(s). The architecture document requires [8] that tracing performed by the OPES system. The architecture document requires [8]
be supported in-band. that tracing be supported in-band.
2.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow? In an OPES System the task of providing tracing information, must
take into account the following considerations:
o The data consumer application end point MUST be able to identify o Providers may be hesitant to reveal information about their
the OPES processors that have acted on an application message. internal network infrastructure.
o The data consumer application end point SHOULD be able to identify o Within a service provider network, OPES processors may be
OPES services (including callout services) that were performed on configured to use non-routable, private IP addresses.
request/responses that are part of an application message.
o TBD o A Data consumer applications would prefer to have a single point
of contact regarding the trace information.
o TBD o TBD
For a given trace, an OPES entity involved in handling the 3.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow?
corresponding application message is "traceable" or "traced" if
information about it appears in that trace. OPES entities have
different levels of traceability requirements. Specifically,
o An OPES system MUST be traceable 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.
o An OPES processor SHOULD be traceable 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
trace. OPES entities have different levels of traceability
requirements. Specifically,
o An OPES service MAY be traceable o An OPES system MUST add its entry to the trace.
o Editor Note: Need to define an OPES System properly o An OPES processor SHOULD add its entry to the trace.
2.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable Entities? 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 resposibility 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 The requirements for information as related to entities that are
terceable in an OPES flow are: terceable in an OPES flow are:
o The privacy policy at the time it dealt with the message o The privacy policy at the time it dealt with the message
o Identification of the party responsible for setting and enforcing o Identification of the party responsible for setting and enforcing
that policy that policy
o Information pointing to a technical contact o Information pointing to a technical contact
o Information that identifies, to the technical contact, the OPES o Information that identifies, to the technical contact, the OPES
processors involved in processing the messag processors involved in processing the messag
o TBD o TBD
3. Requirements for OPES systems 4. Requirements for OPES processors
Editor Note: Need to define OPES System and state requirements 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 it's policy.
4. Requirements for OPES processors The requirements for OPES processors that are applicatble to tracing
are:
TBD 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 granuality.
o TBD
5. Requirements for callout servers 5. Requirements for callout servers
If it is the task of an OPES processor to add trace records to If it is the task of an OPES processor to add trace records to
application messages, then callout servers that uses the OCP protocol application messages, then callout servers that uses the OCP protocol
are not affected by tracing requirements.In order for an OCP protocol are not affected by tracing requirements. In order for an OCP
to be tracing neutral, the OPES server SHOULD be able to meet the protocol to be tracing neutral, the OPES server SHOULD be able to
following requirements: meet the following requirements:
o Callout services adapt payload regardless of the application o Callout services adapt payload regardless of the application
protocol in use and leave header adjustment to OPES processor. protocol in use and leave header adjustment to OPES processor.
o OPES processor SHOULD be able to trace its own invocation and o OPES processor SHOULD be able to trace it's own invocation and
service(s) execution because OPES processor understand the service(s) execution since they understand the application
application protocol. protocol.
o Callout servers MAY be able to add their own OPES trace records o Callout servers MAY be able to add their own OPES trace records
to application level messages. to application level messages.
o TBD o TBD
6. Privacy considerations 6. Privacy considerations
6.1 Tracing and Trust Domains 6.1 Tracing and Trust Domains
skipping to change at page 13, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
7.3 Protocol Binding 7.3 Protocol Binding
How tracing is added is application protocol-specific and will be How tracing is added is application protocol-specific and will be
documented in separate drafts. This work documents what tracing documented in separate drafts. This work documents what tracing
information is required and some common tracing elements. information is required and some common tracing elements.
7.4 Tracing scenarios and examples 7.4 Tracing scenarios and examples
TBD TBD
8. IAB considerations 8. Optional Notification
This section examines IAB [2] considerations (3.1) and (3.2) This section examines IAB [2] considerations (3.1) and (3.2)
regarding notification in an OPES architecture. The IAB regarding notification in an OPES architecture.
considerations are reiterated here for ease of reference.
Notification propagates in opposite direction of tracing and cannot Notification propagates in opposite direction of tracing and cannot
be attached to application messages that it notifies about. be attached to application messages that it notifies about.
Notification can be done out-band and may require the development of Notification can be done out-band and may require the development of
a new protocol. The direction of data flow for tracing and a new protocol. The direction of data flow for tracing and
notification are deoicted in Figure 1. notification are depicted in Figure 2.
Notification Notification
+----------------------------------------------- +-----------------------------------------------
| | | |
| V | V
+---------------+ +-------+ +---------------+ +---------------+ +-------+ +---------------+
| | | | | Data Provider | | | | | | Data Provider |
| Data Consumer | Tracing | OPES |<----->| Application | | Data Consumer | Tracing | OPES |<----->| Application |
| Application |<-----------| | +---------------+ | Application |<-----------| | +---------------+
+---------------+ +-------+ +---------------+ +-------+
^ ^
|OCP |OCP
| |
V V
+---------+ +---------+
| Callout | | Callout |
| Server | | Server |
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 1: Notification Flow Figure 2: Notification Flow
8.1 Notification Concerns
Notifications for every HTTP request can burden some content
providers. Therefore, it might be preferable to consider mechanisms
that allow for the explicit request of notification. Hence, a
mechanism for explicit request of notification May be required.
Furthermore, end point privacy is a concern. An end user may consider
information about OPES services applied on their behalf as private.
For example, if translation for braille device has been applied, it
can be concluded that the user is having eyesight problems; such
information may be misused if the user is applying for a job online.
Similarly, a content provider may consider information about its OPES
services private. For example, use of a specific OPES intermediary by
a high traffic volume site may indicate business alliances that have
not been publicly announced yet. Another example of privacy, include
situations where a user may not want to reveal to any content
provider all the OPES services that have been applied on their
behalf. For example, why should every content provider know what
exact virus scanner a user is using?
Security is also a concern. An attacker may benefit from knowledge
of internal OPES services layout, execution order, software versions
and other information that are likely to be present in automated
notifications.
The level of available details in notifications versus content
provider interest in supporting notification is a concern.
Experience shows that content providers often require very detailed
information about user actions to be interested in notifications at
all. For example, Hit Metering protocol [11] has been designed to
supply content providers with proxy cache hit counts, in an effort to
reduce cache busting behavior which was caused by content providers
desire to get accurate site "access counts". However, the Hit
Metering protocol is currently not widely deployed. This is because
the protocol does not supply content providers with information such
as client IP addresses, browser versions, or cookies.
The Hit Metering experience is relevant because Hit Metering
protocol was designed to do for HTTP caching intermediaries what
OPES notifications are meant to do for OPES intermediaries. Thus, it
is important to have the right balance when specifying the
notofication requirements for OPES.
In this document, IAB choice of "Notification" label is interpreted
as "Notification assistance" (i.e. making notifications meaningful)
and is not be interpreted as a "Notification protocol". Therefore,
the work treats IAB considerations (3.1 and 3.2) as informative (not
normative).
8.1.1 Addressing IAB Consideration 3.1
The consideration is restated below for ease of reference.
(3.1) Notification: The overall OPES framework needs to assist In [9] it was argued that Notification is an expensive approach for
content providers in detecting and responding to client-centric providing tracing information. However, the current work does not
actions by OPES intermediaries that are deemed inappropriate by the prevent an OPES System from publishing policy and specifications that
content provider. 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
protocol is beyond the scope of this Working Group.
IAB consideration (3.1) suggests that the overall OPES framework For example, the following HTTP header:
needs to assist content providers in detecting and responding to
client-centric actions by OPES intermediaries that are deemed
inappropriate by the content provider.
It is important to note that most client-centric actions happen after o OPES-Notify: URI *(pname=pvalue)
the application message has left the content provider(s). Thus,
notifications cannot be piggy-backed to application messages and have
to travel in the opposite direction of traces, see Figure 1. To
address this requirement directly, one would have to develop an out
of band protocol to support notification.
At this stage, there is no need to develop an out of band protocol to Or,
support notification, since requiring the OPES architecture to having
a tracing facility can fulfil the objectives of notification. In
this regard, it is recommended that tracing MUST be always-on, just
like HTTP Via headers. This should eliminate notification as a
separate requirement.
8.1.2 Addressing IAB Consideration 3.2 o My-OPES-Notify: foo=bar q=0.5
The consideration is restated below for ease of reference. can be used.
(3.2) Notification: The overall OPES framework should assist end 9. IANA considerations
users in detecting the behavior of OPES intermediaries, potentially
allowing them to identify imperfect or compromised intermediaries.
TBD TBD
If the OPES end points cooperate then notification can be supported 10. Security Considerations
by tracing. Content providers that suspect or experience difficulties
can do any of the following:
o Check whether requests they receive pass through OPES
intermediaries. Presence of OPES tracing info will determine that.
This check is only possible for request/response protocols. For
other protocols (e.g., broadcast or push), the provider would have
to assume that OPES intermediaries are involved until proven
otherwise.
o If OPES intermediaries are suspected, request OPES traces from
potentially affected user(s). The trace will be a part of the
application message received by the user software. If users
cooperate, the provider(s) have all the information they need. If
users do not cooperate, the provider(s) cannot do much about it
(they might be able to deny service to uncooperative users in
some cases).
o Some traces may indicate that more information is available by
accessing certain resources on the specified OPES intermediary or
elsewhere. Content providers may query for more information in
that case.
o If everything else fails, providers can enforce no-adaptation
policy using appropriate OPES bypass mechanisms and/or end-to-end
mechanisms.
9. Security considerations
TBD TBD
10. 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.
Normative References Normative References
[1] McHenry, S., et. al, "OPES Scenarios and Use Cases", [1] McHenry, S., et. al, "OPES Scenarios and Use Cases",
Internet-Draft TBD, May 2002. Internet-Draft TBD, May 2002.
[2] Floyd, S. and L. Daigle, "IAB Architectural and Policy [2] Floyd, S. and L. Daigle, "IAB Architectural and Policy
Considerations for Open Pluggable Edge Services", RFC 3238, Considerations for Open Pluggable Edge Services", RFC 3238,
January 2002. January 2002.
[3] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., Masinter, L., [3] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Nielsen, H., Masinter, L.,
skipping to change at page 20, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 36
draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt, December 2002. draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03.txt, December 2002.
[7] A. Barbir et al., "Security Threats and Risks for Open Pluggable [7] A. Barbir et al., "Security Threats and Risks for Open Pluggable
Edge Services", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/ Edge Services", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-threats-00.txt, October 2002. internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-threats-00.txt, October 2002.
[8] A. Barbir et al., "An Architecture for Open Pluggable Edge [8] A. Barbir et al., "An Architecture for Open Pluggable Edge
Services (OPES)", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/ Services (OPES)", Internet-Draft http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04, December 2002. 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.
Informative References Informative References
[9] Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J., Scherling, M., [10] Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J., Scherling, M.,
Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A., Carlson, M., Perry, J. and S. Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A., Carlson, M., Perry, J. and S.
Waldbusser, "Terminology for Policy-Based Management", RFC Waldbusser, "Terminology for Policy-Based Management", RFC
3198, November 2001. 3198, November 2001.
[10] L. Cranor, et. al, "The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0 [11] L. Cranor, et. al, "The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0
(P3P1.0) Specification", W3C Recommendation 16 http:// (P3P1.0) Specification", W3C Recommendation 16 http://
www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-P3P-20020416/ , April 2002. www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-P3P-20020416/ , April 2002.
[11] "Hit Metering", RFC . [12] "Hit Metering", RFC .
Author's Address Author's Address
Abbie Barbir Abbie Barbir
Nortel Networks Nortel Networks
3500 Carling Avenue 3500 Carling Avenue
Nepean, Ontario K2H 8E9 Nepean, Ontario K2H 8E9
Canada Canada
Phone: +1 613 763 5229 Phone: +1 613 763 5229
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/