Subject: RE: WREC/CDNP/extproxy ... moving forward

From: LOVRIC Ivan FTRD/DMI/CAE <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:34:31 +0200

I guess a third party within the network should be useful for everybody, for
instance, to filter viruses.
The issue is to define what role is acceptable and legitimate for that
party.

Regards,

-----Message d'origine-----
De: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
Date: mercredi 11 octobre 2000 01:56
À: Ian Cooper
Cc: [email-masked]
Objet: Re: WREC/CDNP/extproxy ... moving forward 

> 
> CDNP
> ====
> * Distribution of data from origin servers outside of the administrative 
> control of the data owner

assuming I understand what you mean by the above, I don't think IETF
should be endorsing such practices at all.    I see two pieces:

1. how the content provider makes data available to consumers, and
how it makes the locations of those data known to consumers

2. how consumers find and access such data

the first is under control of the content-provider; the second
is under control over the consumer.

I see no legitimate role for a third party that isn't acting under
explicit instructions from one or the other of the first two
parties.   IMHO, *this* is what IETF should standardize.

> (I'd specifically exclude the scenario where the distribution occurs
within 
> a single administrative domain... do we really need to standardize that?)

yes, because there is a need to have standardized interfaces between
content providers and content-distribution networks acting on
behalf of the content providers.    there is also a need for a standardized
and efficient interface between content users and content 
distribution networks - the stuff we are using now is quite crude.
 
> * Routing request to closest site (service) with the requested data
>    - should probably consider caching proxies in the model
>    - (obviously has some aspects of competitive advantage as was discussed

> from the WREC KP draft in Pittsburgh)
>    - definition of the "closest" site (see WREC KP draft on known failings

> of ICP in heterogeneous network)

not sure how to define it better but "closest" (or any superlative) may 
be over-ambitious 

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:24:38 -0400

> The issue is to define what role is acceptable and legitimate for that

imho, no amount of filtering is acceptable or legitimate for a third party,
unless such filtering is both authorized by, and under the control of, 
either the provider or the consumer.  this gets back to predictable operation.
what if the consumer has a legitimate need to access something that just
happens to look to the virus filter like it contains a virus?
what if the filter doesn't just check for viruses, but also things that
look (to it) like porn? 

Keith

---

From: Ian Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:32:18 +0100

At 09:24 10/11/00 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>either the provider or the consumer.

Define consumer :)

I seem to recall you having made some comments about this elsewhere...

>   this gets back to predictable operation.

Right.

>what if the filter doesn't just check for viruses, but also things that

Those examples are problematic as they demonstrate situations where there 
could be a valid reason for having filters on the network border.  In those 
cases you can argue that the consumer isn't the user sat in front of her 
browser, but the guy that decides who can use the network and what they can 
use it for.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:18:59 -0400

> could be a valid reason for having filters on the network border.  

define 'network border'.  :)

(now try to define it in a world with ubiquitous portable/wireless devices,
where legitimate interaction patterns no longer correlate well with 
network topology.  imho, topology-based filters are a dead-end. )

> In those cases you can argue that the consumer isn't the user sat in 
> front of her browser, but the guy that decides who can use the network 
> and what they can use it for.

you could argue that.  I'm not at all sure it's either socially valuable,
or that it makes sense from an architectural point of view.

however, without trying to nail down the definition of 'consumer' just
yet, my point is that different users have different needs, and 
the filters which one might find useful, will cause harm to another.
if you want the system to work predictably you can't have third parties
who have no responsibility to the consumer or the content-provider
imposing arbitrary constraints on how the system operates.

Keith

---

From: Oliver Spatscheck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:53:11 -0400 (EDT)

> imposing arbitrary constraints on how the system operates.

Keith,
	without telling me what a consumer is I am not quite sure
if there is a third party in the network. According to your definition
it would have no responsibility to the consumer or the content-provider
now every player on the Internet has some kind of responsibility to the 
consumer or the content-provider.

Oliver

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:25:28 -0400

> consumer or the content-provider.

right, but at some point that responsibility is so distant that it 
is no help in fixing things when they don't work.  

or to put it another way, we should design the system in such a way that 
(at least, for components that conform to the specification)
the behavior of intermedaries is specified by the end-users of the system
(meaning both providers and consumers) and such intermediaries can 
be circumvented when the need arieses.

Keith