Subject: RE: regarding new working groups

From: Gary Tomlinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:49:50 -0800

>>At 11/9/00 1:32PM Hilarie Orman wrote:
>> I think this is more of an issue for Extensible Proxies than the
>> others.
>> 
>> I'm in complete agreement on the fault isolation issue.  For other
>> things, while roles and responsibilities are ultimately important,
binding
>> agreements on paper are perfectly acceptable (i.e., they do not
>> have to have an on-the-wire format).   

>At November 9, 2000 1:37PM Keith Moore wrote:
>I agree with this sentiment.  I'm not trying to insist that the details
>of such agreements be made a part of the protocol (though it would be
>nice if we could do it, I suspect it would take a long time before we 
>could find a good way to encode the needs of real users into a protocol)

I think there still exists a need for the content distribution & delivery
providers to divulge their vested interests as well (paper is fine).
Traditionally, the CDNs we know today represent the content provider's
interests, while ISP's are likely to represent the consumer's interests.  

Gary

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 16:16:49 -0800

I agree with the sentiment, but not that ISPs represent consumers'
interests; generally, I find that they represent their own, with consumers'
as a distant second. Especially regarding caching.

I'm glad that people are talking about these issues; HTTP is AFAIK unique as
a transport protocol, in that it allows relaxation of semantic transparency
without explicit permission of the client or server. This will cause
problems if we just jump in (although some already are!)

Also, may be good to try and involve the W3C, as relaxing semantic
transparency potentially affects many things there (P3P, semantic web, etc)

-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 20:44:18 -0500

> as a distant second. Especially regarding caching.

I see the same thing, and I find it extremely disquieting.  This is 
why I say that intermediaries must act on explicit instructions
(whether or not part of the on-the-wire protocol) from at least 
one of the end parties
 
> without explicit permission of the client or server. 

I don't immediately see how HTTP permits this by itself; it's the idea 
that the network can interpose intermediaries in the HTTP conversation
(whether via interception proxies or via auto-discovery mechanisms
that find intermediaries without  authorization of either the
content provider or the content user) that seems to cause the problems.

at any rate, it needs to be stopped.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:05:39 -0500

> interests, while ISP's are likely to represent the consumer's interests.

I beg to differ; the ISPs generally represent their own interests
when they interfere with the communications between a content 
provider and the content user.  (e.g. by imposing non-voluntary
caches, adding advertising, changing data formats)

IETF should not sanction such practices.  

Keith

---

From: "Mark Day" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:00:44 -0500

> at any rate, it needs to be stopped.

I confess that I am now confused as to whether we are talking about
(a) an issue to keep in mind as we define the tasks of the BOFs/WGs, or
(b) a problem and associated technical solution to be discussed in one or
more of those groups, or
(c) a problem and associated political/legal solution

If it's (a), we can all agree that this is a good issue to keep in mind, and
then keep it in mind.

If it's (b), I need a little more explanation of what the proposed technical
approach is because I don't understand it yet.

It it's (c), then I need a little more explanation of the relationship
between what the IETF can do and the political/legal changes required,
because I don't understand that yet.

Thanks,

--Mark

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:04:58 -0500

> (c) a problem and associated political/legal solution

it could be any of these. but for the purpose of the current discussion,
I mentioned it because I thought it might be useful input to the 
drafting of WG charters.

sorry for not being clearer about that.

Keith