wdiff draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-02.txt draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-03.txt

Network Working Group A. Barbir
Internet-Draft Nortel Networks
Expires: March 18, April 3, 2004 September 18, October 4, 2003

OPES processor and end points communications
draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-02
draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-03

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, April 3, 2004.

Abstract

This memo documents tracing and non-blocking requirements for Open
Pluggable Edge Services (OPES).

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. OPES Domain and OPES System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. OPES Tracing . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements for OPES Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5
3.1 What is traceable in an OPES Flow? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 5
3.2 Requirements for Information Related to Traceable
Entities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Entities . . 7
4. 6
3.3 Requirements for OPES processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. . 7
3.4 Requirements for callout servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Privacy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1 Tracing and Trust Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. How to Support Tracing 7
3.5 Protocol Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1 Tracing and OPES System Granularity . . . . 8
4. Non-Blocking . . . . . . . . 11
7.2 Requirements for In-Band Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2.1 Tracing Information Granularity and Persistence levels
Requirements . . . 9
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3 Protocol Binding . . .
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Tracing Examples . . . . . . . . . . . .
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1 Single OPES Processor: Detailed Trace . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2 Single OPES Processor: Partial Trace . . . .
Informative References . . . . . . . . 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 . . . .
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Informative References . . . . . . . 15
A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 25 17

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

This 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 Tracing functionality
enables a data provider application to detect inappropriate client centric actions
that are performed by OPES entities. The work focus on developing tracing also develops
requirements that can be used to fulfill the notification IAB Notification and
Non-Blocking requirements [2].

In the OPES

The architecture document [8], there is a requirement of
relaying requires [8] that tracing information be supported
in-band. This work investigates this
possibility and discusses possible methods design goal limits the type of application protocols
that could be used to
detect faulty OPES processors or callout servers by end points in an OPES flow. can support. The document details of what a trace record can convey
is organized as follows: Section 2 defines 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 Domain traces and non-blocking. However,
the architecture does not prevent implementers of developing
out-of-band protocols and techniques to address these limitation.

2. OPES System

This sections provides a definition of OPES System. Section 3 discusses entities that are This is needed in
order to define what is 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.

2. OPES Domain and

Definition: An 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 all OPES entities, parts of a
single or of multiple OPES domains, organized entities authorized
by (or on behalf) of either a the data provider application or a the data consumer application to
perform authorized services on
process a given application message. Each OPES
entity

The nature of the authorization agreement determines if authority
delegation is transitive (meaning an authorized entities is
authorized to include other entities). Transitive authority
delegation is common in information systems.

If specific authority agreements allow for re-delegation, 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 by induction. In this case, an OPES system
can start
starts with either entities directly authorized by a data provider application or (or a
data consumer
application (for a given message). consumer) application. The OPES system then includes any OPES
entity trusted authorized by (accepting authority from) an entity that is already in the OPES system.
The trust and authority delegation is always viewed in the context of the a given
application message.

As implied by the above definition, some

An OPES entities System is defined on an application message basis. Having an
authority to process a message does not imply being involved in the
message processing. Thus, some OPES system
MAY members may not
participate in the processing of a given message.

An OPES domain MUST not Similarly, some members may
process the same message several times.

The above definition implies that there can be an OPES sub-system. An OPES domain MUST
require external resources to provide services. An no more than one OPES domain is
system processing a
part of an OPES system belonging to single message at a given operator. OPES domains
have no incidence time. This is based 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 assumption that traverses across various OPES
Domains starting from there is a single data provider application. A and a single data
consumer as far as a given 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 is concerned.

For example, consider a particular OPES Flow. The
formation of Content Delivery Network (CDN) delivering an OPES Flow can be static or dynamic, meaning that the
determination
image on behalf of which OPES Domains will participate in a given busy web site. OPES
Flow (per processors and services that
the CDN uses to adapt and deliver the message basis) can be comprise an OPES
system. In a function of business arrangements.

+------------------------------------------+
| Data Consumer Application |
+------------------------------------------+
^
|
+-------------------------------------------+
| more complex example, an 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: would contain CDN
entries as well as 3rd-party OPES System entities that CDN engages to
perform adaptations (e.g., to adjust image quality).

3. Requirements for OPES Tracing

Before discussing what is traceable in

In an OPES flow, it is beneficial
to define what System tracing means. Tracing is defined as the inclusion of necessary
information within a message in an OPES flow Flow that could be
used to identify the set of
transformations or adaptations that have been performed on its content in an OPES System it before
its delivery to an end point (for example, the data consumer
application).

o An OPES trace: application message trace represents a snap shot of the tracing
information about OPES entities in
an OPES System that adapted that have been added to a given application message.

o OPES tracing: the process of including, manipulating, and
interpreting an OPES trace in

In an OPES System.

To emphasize, the above definition means that OPES System tracing SHOULD be is performed on per message basis. Trace
format is dependent on the application protocol that is being adapted
by OPES. A Data consumer application can use OPES trace to infer the
actions that have been performed by the OPES system. The architecture document requires [8] Actions are the
set of authorized OPES services that tracing be supported in-band.

In were performed by OPES entities
in an OPES System the task of providing System.

Providing tracing information, must 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 provides a data consumer application (or a data
provider application) with useful information without tracing the
exact OPES Processor or callout servers that adapted the data. It is up to the For
example, some OPES services are message-agnostic and operate on
message content or parts of a message. Such services cannot
manipulate message headers. Hence, a data consumer application would
be interested in knowing that a translation service on the message
content was performed. It does not need to know the exact entity that
has performed the service.

There are two distinct uses of OPES traces. First, a trace enables an
"end (content provider or consumer) to have maintained appropriate internal
detailed traces detect the presence of OPES
processors within an OPES System. Such "end" should be able to see a
trace entry, but does not need to be able to find interpret it beyond
identification of the OPES System.

Second, the answer OPES System administrator is expected to be able to
interpret the data contents of an OPES trace. The trace can be provided by
an end (data consumer applications
inquiry. or provider) as an opaque string. The
administrator can use the trace information to identify the
participating OPES processor(s). The administrator can use the trace
to identify the applied adaptation services along with other
message-specific information.

Since the administrators of various OPES Systems 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 to extend beyond basic OPES requirements. Trace
management algorithms should treat trace records as opaque data to
the extent possible.

At the implementation level, for a given trace, an OPES entity
involved in handling the corresponding application message is
"traceable"
traceable or "traced" traced if information about it appears in that 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 May 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

From an OPES processor MAY have context, a fixed configuration that enable
it good tracing approach is similar to respond a trouble
ticket ready for submission 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.

* known address. The OPES processor MAY package tracing information related to
the entities that it control based address is
printed 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. ticket. 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? Entities

The following MUST requirements apply for information as related to
entities that are traceable in an OPES flow are: flow:

o The Identification of the OPES System privacy policy at the time it
dealt with the message message.

o Identification of the party responsible for setting and enforcing
that policy policy.

o Information pointing to a technical contact contact.

o Information that identifies, to the technical contact, the OPES
processors involved in processing the message.

3.3 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 be uniquely identified in that Domain. an OPES System.

o Each OPES processor MUST support tracing, policy can be used to
turn tracing on and to determine its granularity.

5. Requirements for callout servers

In an OPES system, it

o If tracing is turned on, then 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 add its
identification to meet the following
requirements:

o Callout services adapt payload regardless of the application
protocol in use and leave header adjustment to OPES processor. trace.

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

o Callout servers To fulfill this:

* An OPES processor MAY be able have a fixed configuration that enable it
to add their own OPES trace records respond to application level messages.

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. tracing inquires. For example, if an OPES system is on the content provider "side",
end-users are not guaranteed any traces. If an entity X performs
service Y and so on.

* An OPES system is working
inside end-user domain, the origin server is not guaranteed any
traces processor MAY package tracing information related to user requests.

7. How to Support Tracing

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

o There MUST be a System Identifier entities that identify it control based on the policy of a domain that is
employing an given
OPES system.

o An System. For example, the trace may state that service W
was performed. The OPES processor MUST be able to be uniquely identified (MUST
have an Identifier) within knows that service W is
composed of services X, Y and Z in a system.

o An OPES processor SHOULD add its identification to the trace. given order

o An OPES processor SHOULD add to the trace identification of every
callout service that received processed 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 System.

3.4 Requirements for callout servers

In an OPES system, it is the "end (content producer or consumer) to detect task of an 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
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 add 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. messages. 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 some cases, callout
servers May add trace information to application messages. This
should be preserved
for done under the duration control 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
profile details? Where to set preferences?

7.3 System provider.

3.5 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.

8. Tracing Examples

This section provides some examples

4. Non-Blocking

In [9] recommendation addresses the issue of tracing that could be
generated by non-blocking in an OPES
System. The examples are based recommendation is restated below for ease of reference.

(3.3) Non-blocking: If there exists a non-OPES version of content
available from the content provider, the OPES architecture must
not prevent users from retrieving this non-OPES version from the
content provider.

The IAB recommendation implies that it is up to the content provider
to make non-OPES versions of a given content available. The actual
meaning of non-OPES version of the content depended on HTTP [3] the agreement
between the OPES provider and
use HTTP extension headers the content provider. The agreement can
allow OPES to perform some services (such as given in [6]. In [6] trace entries are
supplied using HTTP extension message headers. These headers are
defined using #list constructs. logging services) and
prevent it from performing other services (such as data to audio
transformation).

Whether an OPES System honor a non-blocking request from a data
consumer application (user) can also be a function of deployment.
Consider the case where Company A valid HTTP message may contain
multiple entries has as contract with an OPES
provider to perform virus checking on all e-mail attachments. An
employee X of each header. Company A can issue a non-blocking request for the
virus scanning service. However, the request could be ignored by the
OPES provider since it contradicts its agreement with Company A. As
a second example, a user may issue a non-blocking request for adult
content, this request may be declined by the OPES provider simply
because it contradicts its internal policy or its agreement with the
end subscriber.

In some cases, a data consumer application will issue a non-blocking
request since it suspects that the OPES System is corrupting the
data. For example, an OPES Systems, these headers
MUST entity has determined that a Virus is
present in an attachment, while the user is aware that some versions
of virus scanners will make that mistake. In this case, the user can
use the non-blocking technique (can be used in combination with the
tracing facility) to represent solve the trace entries.

In [6], problem. However, whether 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
System will honor the case non-blocking request or not is still a function
of the deployment scenario, content availability and related
policies.

Like tracing, Non-blocking operates on per application message bases.
Non-Blocking is an OPES System consisting of end-end operation as opposed to a
single OPES Processor that is capable hop-by-hop
operation. Non-blocking requests are generally client centric and go
in the opposite direction of locally performing three
OPES services. A data consumer tracing requests. Non-blocking can be
performed out of band or in-band. This work requires non-blocking to
be performed in-band as an extension to an application may receive specific
protocol. Non-OPES entities should be able to safely ignore the following
HTTP response message header after
extensions. The work does not prevent 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
In this example, the trace has identified Systems from developing
their own out of band protocols.

Non-blocking format is dependent on the application protocol that is
being adapted by OPES. For a given application protocol, in an OPES
System and all the
OPES there can be services that were performed operate on the data consumer application
original request.

8.2 Single OPES Processor: Partial Trace

In this example, the OPES System consisting message
headers and those that just operate on content. This mix of a two service
requires that an OPES Processor.
Each Processor processor that is capable of locally performing many OPES services. A
data consumer application may receive calling 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 service(s) to
handle the non-blocking request. However, In some cases, the trace has one entry first OPES
processor that fully identifies one
service and will get the other services are identified through a common ID.
The OPES system is expected to non-blocking request may not be able to detail the other services
when queried by the data consumer application.

8.3 Multiple first
OPES Processors: Full Trace

In this example, processor that will know whether a non-OPES version of the
content is available or not.

In an OPES System consisting of a two System, the OPES Processors.
Each processor provider is capable of locally performing two expected to configure at
least one OPES services. A
data consumer application may receive the following HTTP response
message processor to process a non-blocking 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

OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-Service-Provider2.com /xxx/
?sid=111

OPES-Service: http:// www.example-opes-Service-Provider2.com /xxx/
?sid=112 based on
content availability and related policies. In this example, the trace has identified case the OPES System and all
processor is expected to determine the
OPES set of services that were performed on will be
bypassed (or those services that will be performed) or whether the
request should be forwarded directly to the data consumer provider application
original request.

8.4 Multiple
(origin content provider).

Although, IAB recommendation (3.3) has intended for non-blocking
approach to be used as a vehicle to bypass faulty OPES Processors: Partial Trace

In
intermediaries. However, this example, work recognizes that the OPES System consisting of same technique
can be used to enable a two OPES Processors.
Each processor is capable of locally performing several OPES
services. A data consumer application may receive to select 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
In this example, several OPES set
of services may that it would like to be performed on the
request. However, the trace partially indicates the services bypassed for a given application
message. For this reason, a non-blocking request is viewed as a
bypass instruction that
were performed. The contains a URI that identifies an OPES system is expected entity
or a group of OPES entities that perform a service (or services) to
be able bypassed. An instruction may contain more than one such URI. A
special wildcard identifier can be used to detail the
other services when queried by the data consumer application.

9. Optional Notification

This section examines IAB [2] considerations (3.1) and (3.2)
regarding notification in an represent all possible
URIs (i.e., all possible OPES architecture.

Notification propagates in opposite direction services). This version of tracing and cannot
be attached the work
requires that all non-blocking instructions to use the wildcard
approach.

For example, an application messages that it notifies about.
Notification level protocol (such as HTTP) can be done out-band and may require
extended to include the development of
a new protocol. following OPES non-blocking related header:

OPES-Bypass: *

The direction of data flow following requirements apply for tracing and
notification are depicted in Figure 2.

o An 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, System MUST support the current work does not
prevent an non-blocking feature for requests
of non-OPES content for a given application message.

o An OPES System from publishing policy and specifications MUST treat the non-blocking feature as an
end-to-end operation.

* This means that
allow Optional Notification. For example, there MUST be at least one OPES processor in an
OPES System can adopt a
mechanism that uses a flag that would allow a data consumer knows how to interpret and a
data provider application process the
non-blocking feature.

* The recipient MUST forward the bypass instructions to signal the next
application hop provided that the next hop speaks application
protocol with OPES bypass support.

* This requirement applies to each other all bypass instructions, including
those that they are
interested identify known-to-recipient entities.

o Application-specific bindings MUST map the above non-blocking
mechanism to receive an explicit notification their application protocol.

End users may not be able to know if an their non-blocking request was
honored or not by the OPES service is
applied to a specific message. The value of System. In this optional flag/field
can be a URI that identifies notification method plus parameters. If
a processor understands the method, case, it would be able
beneficial if tracing can provide additional information regarding
whether a non-blocking request was honored or not. For this reason,
the following requirement also apply to further
decode the field and send a notification. The specification of tracing facility:

o An OPES System SHOULD assist the
field name and format for an data consumer application protocol can be stated in
determining if a non-blocking request was performed by the associated binding document. The details of the notification
protocol system.

Assistance is beyond viewed as the scope addition of this document.

For example, the following HTTP header:

OPES-Notify: URI *(pname=pvalue)

Or,

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

can information about services
that were skipped and those that could not be used.

10. bypassed.

5. IANA considerations

This work does not require any IANA consideration since any actions
will be addressed in [6].

11.

6. Security Considerations

The security considerations for OPES are documented in [7]. This
document is a requirement document for tracing and non-blocking and
as such does not develop any new protocols that require security
considerations.

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 August 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.

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

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.

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.