![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
> 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
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.