Subject: RE: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)

From: "Abbie Barbir" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:48:06 -0400

ok,

so let us get the issues right.

It seems to me that the main issue here is to ensure the integrity of
content
from the origin source to the end consumer. In general, the problem also
include the whole Digital Right Management (DRM) of content.

In the simplest case, you can think of caching as an OPES device with the
NULL
transformation.

The DRM problems must be addressed ASAP. 
Killing OPES does not solve the problem, it only delay dealing with it.

abbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 3:03 PM
> To: Barbir, Abbie [CAR:CC70:EXCH]
> Cc: Keith Moore; Michael W. Condry; Mark Nottingham; Scott Brim;
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: WG Review: Open Pluggable Edge Services (opes)
> 
> 
> > I still cannot see why you keep insisting that the primary purpose
> > of OPES is abusive?
> 
> partially because, as far as I can tell, the biggest demand 
> for an interface
> like OPES is not for a service acting on behalf of an 
> endpoint, but for an 
> intermediary that is acting without approval of either endpoint.
> 
> for example - if you really want to design a pluggable 
> interface for use 
> by content providers or by the audience, then there's no need 
> to presume 
> that the interface is layered on top of HTTP, and there are 
> almost certainly 
> better choices than HTTP for that interface.
> 
> another reason I am concerned is because the charter is so open-ended
> and vague, when there is obviously a tremendous potential for misuse.
> 
> another reason I am concerned is because of statements to the 
> effect that 
> "we don't need to be concerned about how the protocol is used" when 
> there is so much potential for misuse.
> 
> no, I don't think the OPES people are deliberately bent on harm.
> I do think they are likely to do a great deal of harm if they are 
> allowed to proceed on their current course.
> 
> Keith
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:23:46 -0400

> content from the origin source to the end consumer. In general, the 
> problem also include the whole Digital Right Management (DRM) of content.

DRM has its own set of issues.  I'll believe in DRM when someone 
comes up with a DRM proposal that 

a) protects the interests of *all* parties - not just those of the 
content-provider, but also those of the public (e.g. fair use rights, 
the right to parody the work, the right to make backup copies, 
etc.) - thus preserving a reasonable balance between the creator's
interest and the public's interest.

b) is flexible enough to provide as much protection for "open"-style 
licenses (e.g. GPL) as for "closed"-style licenses.   In other words,
it should not favor the interests of those who want to make money 
by controlling the use of their creative work more than the interests 
of those who want their work to be used freely but want to see that 
their work is preserved and protected from misuse. 

until someone demonstrates a better way to deal with those issues are 
resolved, DRM would only further the efforts by large media companies 
to dilute the public's rights.

If we had a working DRM system (where "working" includes the criteria 
above) it might make sense to make OPES depend on it.  But we won't 
have such a system for many years, if ever.  It's not because there
aren't people working on it, it's because the problem as defined is
intrinsically difficult (and perhaps also - or so I'm told - because 
the majority of people working on DRM are acting against the public 
interest.  I have no direct involvement myself.)

Just because I recognize that content-providers have rights that need 
to be preserved does not mean that I support DRM as a mechanism for 
doing so.

Keith