wdiff draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-00.txt draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-01.txt

Network Working Group A. Barbir
Internet-Draft Nortel Networks
Expires: December 10, 2003 June 11, March 12, 2004 September 12, 2003

OPES processor and end points communications
draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-00
draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-01

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 December 10, 2003. March 12, 2004.

Abstract

This memo documents tracing requirements for Open Pluggable Edge
Services (OPES).

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. OPES Tracing Domain and OPES System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. OPES Tracing . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable
Entities? . . . 6
3.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable
Entities? . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Requirements for OPES systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7
4. Requirements for OPES processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8
5. Requirements for callout servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9
6. Privacy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10
6.1 Tracing and Trust Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10
7. How to Support Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11
7.1 Tracing and OPES System Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11
7.2 Requirements for In-Band Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12
7.2.1 Tracing Information Granularity and Persistence levels
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12
7.3 Protocol Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13
7.4 Tracing scenarios and examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IAB considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1
8. Optional Notification Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1.1 Addressing IAB Consideration 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1.2 Addressing IAB Consideration 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Security IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. IANA Considerations . . 16
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 17
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 18
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 19
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 19
A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 20
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 22 21

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 clinet centric actions
by OPES entities. The work focus on developing tracing requirements
that can be used to fulfil 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: .......

2. Section 2 defines OPES Tracing

Before discussing what is Domain
and OPES System. Section 3 discusses entities that are traceable in
an OPES flow, it is beneficial 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 Domain and OPES System

This sections clarifies the terms OPES system and OPES Domain [8].
These terms are needed in order to define what tracing means. Tracing is defined as the inclusion of
necessary information within a message traceable in an
OPES flow that could be
used to identify Flow [8].

An OPES domain describes the set collection of transformations or adpatations that have
been performed on its content before its delivery to an end point
(the data consumer application).

o OPES trace: application message information about OPES entities that adapted that message

o a
single provider operates. OPES tracing: the process domains can be based on trust or other
operational boundaries. All elements of including, manipulating, and
interpreting an OPES trace

To emphasize, the above definition means that OPES tracing SHOULD "OPES Domain" MUST be
performed on per message basis. Trace format is dependent on in
the
application protocol being adapted by OPES. Data consumer application
can use same trust domain. This would be independent of any specific OPES trace to infer the actions that have been performed by
flow.

An OPES system(s). The architecture document requires [8] that tracing
be supported in-band.

2.1 What is traceable in an system consists of a limited set of OPES Flow?

o The data consumer application end point MUST be able to identify
the entities, parts of a
single or of multiple OPES processors that have acted operators domains, organized by (or on an
behalf) of either a data provider application message.

o The or a data consumer
application end point SHOULD be able to identify
OPES perform authorized services (including callout services) that were performed on
request/responses that are part of an application message.

o TBD

For a given trace, an application
message. Each 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 an OPES system MUST be traceable

o directly
addressable on IP level by a data consumer application.

An OPES processor SHOULD system can be traceable

o formed in a recursive manner. An OPES service MAY be traceable

o Editor Note: Need to define an OPES System properly

2.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable Entities?

The requirements for information as related to entities 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 are
terceable is
already in an the OPES flow are:

o system. The privacy policy at the time it dealt with trust and authority delegation is
viewed in the message

o Identification context 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, given application message.

As implied by the above definition, some OPES
processors involved entities in processing the messag

o TBD

3. Requirements for system
may not participate in the processing of a given message.

An OPES systems

Editor Note: Need to define domain MUST not be an OPES System and state requirements

4. Requirements for sub-system. An OPES processors

TBD

5. Requirements for callout servers

If it domain MUST
require external resources to provide services. An OPES domain is the task a
part of an OPES processor to add trace records system belonging to
application messages, then callout servers that uses a given operator. OPES domains
have no incidence on the OCP protocol
are not affected by tracing requirements.In order 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 OCP protocol
to be tracing neutral, the OPES server SHOULD Flow is shown that traverses across various OPES
Domains. A data consumer application MUST be able to meet recive tracing
information on per message basis that enable it to determine the
following requirements:

o Callout services adapt payload regardless set
of transformations that were perfomed on the application
protocol in use and leave header adjustment to data for a particular
OPES processor.

o Flow. The formation of an OPES processor SHOULD flow can be able to trace its own invocation and
service(s) execution because static or dynamic,
meaning that the determination of which OPES processor understand 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
to define what tracing means. Tracing is defined as the
application protocol.

o Callout servers MAY inclusion of
necessary information within a message in an OPES flow that could be able
used to add their own identify the set of transformations or adpatations that have
been performed on its content in an OPES trace records System before its delivery
to an end point (the data consumer application).

o OPES trace: application level messages. message information about OPES entities in
an OPES System that adapted that message.

o TBD

6. Privacy considerations

6.1 Tracing and Trust Domains

A trust domain may include several OPES systems tracing: the process of including, manipulating, and entities. Within
a trust domain, there MUST be at least support for one
interpreting an OPES trace entry 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. Entities outside of The architecture document requires [8]
that system 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 or be hesitant to reveal information about their
internal network infrastructure.

o Within a service provider network, OPES processors may not see any
traces, depending on domain policies or configuration. For example,
if 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.

o TBD

3.1 What is traceable in an OPES system is Flow?

This section focuses on identifying the content provider "side", end-users are
not guaranteed any traces. If traceable entities in an OPES system is working inside
end-user domain,
Flow. Tracing information MUST be able to provide a data consumer
application with useful information without tracing the origin server exact OPES
Processor or callout servers that adapted the data. It is not guaranteed any traces
related up to user requests.

7. How the
OPES service provider to Support Tracing

In order have maintained appropriate internal
detailed traces to support tracing, find the following aspects must be addressed:

o There MUST be a System Identifier that identify answer to the data consumer applications
inquiry.

At the implementation level, for a domain that is
employing given trace, an OPES system.

o An entity
involved in handling the corresponding application message is
"traceable" or "traced" if information about it appears in that
trace. OPES processor MUST be able to be uniquely identified (MUST entities have an Identifier) within a system. different levels of traceability
requirements. Specifically,

o An OPES processor system MUST add its identification entry to the trace.

o An OPES processor SHOULD add its entry to the trace identification of every
callout service that received the application message. trace.

o An OPES processor MUST service SHOULD add its entry to the trace identification of the
"system/entity" it belongs to. "System" ID MUST make it possible
to access "system" privacy policy. trace.

o An OPES processor entity MAY group the above information for sequential
trace entries having the same "system/entity" ID. In other words, manage trace information from entities that are
under its control. For example, an OPES processor may add or
remove callout service entries produced within in order to manage the same "system/entity" MAY be
merged/aggregated into size of a single less detailed trace entry.

o An
trace. Other considerations include:

* The OPES processor may have a fixed configuration that enable
it to respond to tracing inquires.

* The OPES processor MAY delegate trace management to may insert a callout
service within the same "system/entity".

TBD

7.1 Tracing and OPES System Granularity

There are two distinct uses summary of traces. First, is to SHOULD enable the
"end (content producer or consumer) services that it
controls. The summary can be used to detect respond to tracing
inquiries.

* The OPES processor presence
within end's trust domain. Such "end" should be able may package tracing information related to see
the entities that it control based on the policy of a trace
entry, but does not need given
OPES System.

From an OPES context, a good tracing approach is similar to be able a trouble
ticket ready for submission to interpret it beyond
identification a known address. The trace in itself
is not necessarily a detailed description of what has happened. It is
the trust domain(s).

Second, resposibility of the domain administrator SHOULD be able operator to take a trace entry
(possibly supplied by an "end? as an opaque string) and interpret it. resolve the problems.

3.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable Entities?

The administrator must be able requirements for information as related to identify entities that are
terceable in an OPES processor(s) involved flow are:

o The privacy policy at the time it dealt with the message

o Identification of the party responsible for setting and may be able enforcing
that policy

o Information pointing to identify applied adaptation services along with
other message-specific information. That information SHOULD help a technical contact

o Information that identifies, to
explain what the technical contact, the OPES agent(s) were
processors involved and what they did. It may be
impractical to provide all the required information in all cases.
This document view a trace record as a hint, as opposed processing the messag

o TBD

4. Requirements for OPES processors

In order to an
exhaustive audit.

Since facilitate compliance, the administrators concept of various trust domains an "OPES system"
being traceable, requires that each OPES processor MUST support
tracing. Policy can have various
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 set that defines which domain has
authorization to extend beyond basic turn on tracing and its granularity. An OPES requirements. Trace
management algorithms should treat
provider can have its private policy for trace records as opaque data to
the extent possible.

It is not expected information, but it
MUST support tracing mechanisms and it MUST reveal it's policy.

The requirements for OPES processors that entities in one trust domain are applicatble to be able tracing
are:

o Each OPES processor MUST belong to
get all OPES-related feedback from entities in other trust domains.
For example, if an end-user suspects that a served is corrupted by single OPES Domain.

o Each OPES processor MUST have a
callout service, there is no guarantee Unique Identity in that the use will Domain.

o Each OPES processor MUST support tracing, policy can be able used to
identify that service, contact its owner, or debug it _unless_ the
service is within my trust domain. This is no different from the
current situation where
turn tracing on and.to determine granuality.

o TBD

5. Requirements for callout servers

If it is impossible, in general, to know the
contact person for an application on task of an origin server that generates
corrupted HTML; and even if the person is known, one should not
expect that person OPES processor to respond add trace records to end-user queries.

7.2 Requirements
application messages, then callout servers that uses the OCP protocol
are not affected by tracing requirements. In order for In-Band Tracing

The an OCP
protocol to be tracing neutral, the OPES architecture [8] states that traces must server SHOULD be in-band. The
support of this design specification is dependent on able to
meet the specifics following requirements:

o Callout services adapt payload regardless of the message application level
protocol that is being used in an use and leave header adjustment to OPES
flow. In-band tracing limits processor.

o OPES processor SHOULD be able to trace it's own invocation and
service(s) execution since they understand the type of application protocols that
protocol.

o Callout servers MAY be able to add their own OPES can support. The details of what a trace record can convey is
also dependent on the choice of the records
to application level protocol.

For these reasons, the work will document requirements messages.

o TBD

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
application protocols one trace entry
per system. Entities outside of that need to support 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. However, If an OPES system is working inside
end-user domain, the
architecture does origin server is not prevent implementers of developing out-of-band
protocols and techniques guaranteed any traces
related to address the above limitation.

7.2.1 user requests.

7. How to Support Tracing Information Granularity and Persistence levels
Requirements

In order to support tracing, the following aspects must be addressed:

o There MUST be able to trace entities a System Identifier that have acted on an
application message in identify a domain that is
employing an OPES flow, there may system.

o An OPES processor MUST be requirements able to
keep information that is related be uniquely identified (MUST
have an Identifier) within a system.

o An OPES processor MUST add its identification to the following: trace.

o Message-related informatio: All data that describes specific
actions performed on the message An OPES processor SHOULD be provided with that
message, as there is no other way add to find message level details
later. the trace identification of every
callout service that received the application message.

o Session related information: Session level data An OPES processor MUST be preserved
for add to the duration trace identification of the session.
"system/entity" it belongs to. "System" ID MUST make it possible
to access "system" privacy policy.

o An OPES processor is responsible for
inserting notifications if session-level MAY group the above information changes. for sequential
trace entries having the same "system/entity" ID. In other words,
trace entries produced within the same "system/entity" MAY be
merged/aggregated into a single less detailed trace entry.

o End-point related data: What profile is activated? Where to get
profile details? Where An OPES processor MAY delegate trace management to set preferences?

o TBD

7.3 Protocol Binding

How tracing is added is application protocol-specific and will be
documented in separate drafts. This work documents what tracing
information is required and some common tracing elements.

7.4 Tracing scenarios and examples

TBD

8. IAB considerations

This section examines IAB [2] considerations (3.1) a callout
service within the same "system/entity".

TBD

7.1 Tracing and (3.2)
regarding notification in an OPES architecture. The IAB
considerations System Granularity

There are reiterated here for ease of reference.

Notification propagates in opposite direction two distinct uses of tracing and cannot traces. First, is to SHOULD enable the
"end (content producer or consumer) to detect OPES processor presence
within end's trust domain. Such "end" should be attached able to see a trace
entry, but does not need to application messages that it notifies about.
Notification can be done out-band and may require the development able to interpret it beyond
identification of the trust domain(s).

Second, the domain administrator SHOULD be able to take a new protocol. trace entry
(possibly supplied by an "end? as an opaque string) and interpret it.
The direction of data flow for tracing administrator must be able to identify OPES processor(s) involved
and
notification are deoicted in Figure 1.

Notification
+-----------------------------------------------
| |
| V
+---------------+ +-------+ +---------------+
| | | | | Data Provider |
| Data Consumer | Tracing | may be able to identify applied adaptation services along with
other message-specific information. That information SHOULD help to
explain what OPES |<----->| Application |
| Application |<-----------| | +---------------+
+---------------+ +-------+
^
|OCP
|
V
+---------+
| Callout |
| Server |
+---------+

Figure 1: Notification Flow

8.1 Notification Concerns

Notifications for every HTTP request can burden some content
providers. Therefore, it might agent(s) were involved and what they did. It may be preferable
impractical to consider mechanisms
that allow for provide all the explicit request 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
ways of notification. Hence, a
mechanism for explicit request looking into tracing, they MAY require the choice of notification May freedom
in what to put in trace records and how to format them. Trace records
should be required.

Furthermore, end point privacy is a concern. An end user may consider
information about easy to extend beyond basic OPES services applied on their behalf requirements. Trace
management algorithms should treat trace records as private. 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 translation for braille device has been applied, it
can an end-user suspects that a served is corrupted by a
callout service, there is no guarantee that the use will be concluded able to
identify that service, contact its owner, or debug it _unless_ the user
service is having eyesight problems; such
information may be misused if within my trust domain. This is no different from the user
current situation where it is applying impossible, in general, to know the
contact person 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 an application on an origin server that have
not been publicly announced yet. Another example of privacy, include
situations where a user may generates
corrupted HTML; and even if the person is known, one should not want
expect that person to reveal respond to any content
provider all 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 specification is dependent on the specifics of
the message application level protocol that is being used in an OPES
flow. In-band tracing limits the OPES services type of application protocols that have been applied on their
behalf. For example, why should every content provider know
OPES can support. The details of what
exact virus scanner a user is using?

Security trace record can convey is
also a concern. An attacker may benefit from knowledge dependent on the choice of internal OPES services layout, execution order, software versions
and other information the application level protocol.

For these reasons, the work will document requirements for
application protocols that are likely need to be present in automated
notifications.

The level support OPES traces. However, the
architecture does not prevent implementers 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 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 interested in notifications at
all. For example, Hit Metering protocol [11] has been designed able to
supply content providers with proxy cache hit counts, trace entities that have acted on an
application message in an effort OPES flow, there may be requirements to
reduce cache busting behavior which was caused by content providers
desire
keep information that is related to get accurate site "access counts". However, the Hit
Metering protocol is currently not widely deployed. This is because following:

o Message-related informatio: All data that describes specific
actions performed on the protocol does not supply content providers message SHOULD be provided with information such that
message, as client IP addresses, browser versions, or cookies.

The Hit Metering experience is relevant because Hit Metering
protocol was designed there is no other way to do find message level details
later.

o Session related information: Session level data MUST be preserved
for HTTP caching intermediaries what the duration of the session. OPES notifications are meant to do processor is responsible for OPES intermediaries. Thus, it
inserting notifications if session-level information changes.

o End-point related data: What profile is important activated? Where to have the right balance when specifying the
notofication requirements for OPES.

In this document, IAB choice of "Notification" label get
profile details? Where to set preferences?

o TBD

7.3 Protocol Binding

How tracing is interpreted
as "Notification assistance" (i.e. making notifications meaningful)
and added is not application protocol-specific and will be interpreted as a "Notification protocol". Therefore,
the
documented in separate drafts. This work treats IAB considerations (3.1 and 3.2) as informative (not
normative).

8.1.1 Addressing IAB Consideration 3.1

The consideration documents what tracing
information is restated below for ease of reference.

(3.1) Notification: The overall OPES framework needs to assist
content providers in detecting required and responding to client-centric
actions by OPES intermediaries that are deemed inappropriate by the
content provider. some common tracing elements.

7.4 Tracing scenarios and examples

TBD

8. Optional Notification

This section examines IAB consideration [2] considerations (3.1) suggests that the overall and (3.2)
regarding notification in an OPES framework
needs to assist content providers architecture.

Notification propagates in detecting opposite direction of tracing 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
the application message has left the content provider(s). Thus,
notifications cannot
be piggy-backed attached to application messages that it notifies about.
Notification can be done out-band and have
to travel in may require 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 development of band protocol to
support notification, since requiring the OPES architecture to having
a tracing facility can fulfil the objectives new protocol. The direction of notification. In
this regard, it is recommended that data flow for tracing MUST be always-on, just
like HTTP Via headers. This should eliminate and
notification as a
separate requirement.

8.1.2 Addressing IAB Consideration 3.2

The consideration 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 restated below an expensive approach for ease of reference.

(3.2) Notification: The overall OPES framework should assist end
users in detecting
providing tracing information. However, the behavior of current work does not
prevent an OPES intermediaries, potentially
allowing them to identify imperfect or compromised intermediaries.

TBD

If the System from publishing policy and specifications that
allow Optional Notification. For example, an OPES end points cooperate then notification System can be supported
by tracing. Content providers adopt a
mechanism that uses a flag 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 allow a data consumer and a
data provider application to assume signal to each other that OPES intermediaries are involved until proven
otherwise.

o If OPES intermediaries they are suspected, request
interested to receive an explicit notification if an OPES traces from
potentially affected user(s). service is
applied to a specific message. The trace will value of this optional flag/field
can be a part of the
application message received by the user software. If users
cooperate, the provider(s) have all the information they need. URI that identifies notification method plus parameters. If
users do not cooperate,
a processor understands the provider(s) cannot do much about method, it
(they might would 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 further
decode the specified OPES intermediary or
elsewhere. Content providers may query field and send a notification. The specification of the
field name and format for more information an application protocol can be stated in
that case.
the associated binding document. The details of the notification
protocol is beyond the scope of this Working Group.

For example, the following HTTP header:

o If everything else fails, providers OPES-Notify: URI *(pname=pvalue)

Or,

o My-OPES-Notify: foo=bar q=0.5

can enforce no-adaptation
policy using appropriate OPES bypass mechanisms and/or end-to-end
mechanisms. be used.

9. Security IANA considerations

TBD

10. IANA Security 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.

TBD

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.

[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.

Informative References

[9]

[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.

[10]

[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.

[11]

[12] "Hit Metering", RFC .

Author's Address

Abbie Barbir
Nortel Networks
3500 Carling Avenue
Nepean, Ontario K2H 8E9
Canada

Phone: +1 613 763 5229
EMail: abbieb@nortelnetworks.com

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

TBD

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

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
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.