Internet Engineering Task Force R. Erickson INTERNET DRAFT Intel Corporation Expires: August 2001 H. Orman Novell OPES Network Taxonomy draft-erickson-opes-taxonomy-00.txt 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. Abstract This document presents the different models for deployment of OPES boxes. This document will attempt to clarify the different owners/users of an OPES box in order to provide a framework for discussing our observed services, trust relationships and working environments. Hopefully, this document will give a common framework for discussing and defining policy issues for networks using OPES boxes. [Page 1] Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001 Table of Contents Status of this Memo..................................................1 Abstract.............................................................1 Table of Contents....................................................2 1. Introduction......................................................3 2. OPES Use..........................................................5 2.1 Content Provider and Hosting ISP.................................5 2.2 CDN Service......................................................5 2.3 Access ISP.......................................................6 2.4 Client...........................................................6 2.5 Proposed Questions...............................................6 4. Intellectual Property.............................................7 5. Acknowledgments...................................................7 6. References........................................................7 7. Disclaimer........................................................7 8. Author's Address..................................................8 9. Full Copyright Statement..........................................8 Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 2] Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001 1. Introduction There have been several example uses of OPES boxes (e.g. those found in draft-beck-opes-esfnep-01.txt) that often imply very different operating environments for the OPES box. In general, the current working model of the Internet would place proxy boxes under four different owners (and therefore three different usage models). The primary owners identified are: Content Provider (or origin websites), Content Delivery Networks (CDN), Clients, and of course ISPÆs providing both access for a client and hosting for a Content Provider. Here is a diagram of this framework. <========= Content Oriented # Browser Oriented ================> # +----------+ +---------+ # +-------------+ +-------------+ | Content | | CDN | # | Access | | Client | | Provider |--->| |---#-->| ISP |--->| | | | | | # | | | | |(web |<---| (cache |<--#---|(cache |<---|(fwd | | srv)(rev | | arrays)| # | arrays)(fwd | | pxy) (client| | pxy)| | | # | pxy)| | apps)| +----------+ +---------+ # +-------------+ +-------------+ # INBOUND <====================#=======================> OUTBOUND Any of the proxy or cache boxes may be a OPES box, as well as several boxes not shown û however, any others will most likely also be owned by one of the 5 parties. This diagram still does not show any possible remote callout servers (e.g. iCAP servers) that may exist. Also note that this shows ownership rather than location û i.e. a CDN will often have cache arrays co-located at an ISP. And, of course, there are several examples of a single entity playing multiple roles (e.g. AOL acting as a Content Provider, Hosting ISP, CDN and Access ISP). The dividing line represents a likely point of separation of services being offered specifically for either the Client or Content Provider. For instance, the Access ISP is likely to offer content filtering or virus checking to their customers (the clients) where the Hosting ISP or CDN would have no reason to offer these services, since their customer would be the Content Provider. Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 3] Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001 One other limitation is this diagram shows the Internet as it öisö, rather than how it öwill beö (though, perhaps ômay beö would be a better term). In the future we will quite likely see a simpler model more along the lines of cable television, with a small set of Content Providers, and companies acting as both distributors and access provider, and in fact even owning the browsing equipment for the client. This would, in fact, look more like this: +----------+ | +----------+ +------------------------------------+ | | +----------+ | Distributor | | | | Content | | +------+ | | | | Provider |--------->| (rev (cache (fwd |+------+ | | | | | | pxy) arrays) pxy) +|+------+ | | | |(web |<---------| +|client| | +-| | srv)(rev | | +------+ | +-| pxy)| +------------------------------------+ +----------+ In any event, this represents a fairly complete set of possible proxy- points where an OPES extension could be installed. Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 4] Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001 2. OPES Use Now that there is a breakdown of the concerned parties, the services that each OPES box owner will likely use or provide can be identified. The following table shows the example services provided by draft-beck- opes-esfnep-01.txt, and the parties that would likely offer them: Content CDN Access Client Provider Service ISP and Hosting ISP Virus Scanning X X Insertion of Ad Banners X X X Insertion of Regional Data X X Caching of Personalized/Customized X X Web Pages Content Adaptation for Alternate Web Access X X X Devices Limited Client Bandwidth Adaptation X X X Adaptation of Streaming X Media X Request Filtering X X Request Filtering through Content X Analysis Creation of User X X X Profiles Search Engine Index on Cached Web Pages X X X Language Translation X X X X This table was built using the following assumptions about the concerns and priorities of the owners of the OPES boxes. 2.1 Content Provider and Hosting ISP OPES Boxes owned by the Content Provider or the Hosting ISP will most likely be under the Content ProviderÆs control, or will at least be providing services for the Content Provider. 2.2 CDN Service OPES Boxes owned by the CDN (or a set of CDNÆs in a peering relationship) will be setup to handle content for their customers (the content providers), and therefore will probably have features for the Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 5] Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001 content providers, along with any service they can add for the CDNÆs own revenue. 2.3 Access ISP Currently, it is unlikely that OPES Boxes owned by an Access ISP would provide services for the Content Provider (or CDN), due to the proliferation of ISPÆs and the large number of service agreements that would have to be reached. Therefore, the Access ISP will be using OPES boxes for services for their own revenue (Ad banners), and for services they could provide their customers (Virus Scanning, Filtering, et al), but also for services they could provide selected content providers (Bandwidth adaptation, Regional data, User profiles, et al). 2.4 Client OPES Boxes owned by the ClientÆs themselves (primarily corporate enterprises, libraries, internet cafes, etc) will offer services oriented only towards the clients. 2.5 Proposed Questions The document was created primarily to setup a framework for discussing OPES services and how they would be used. However, here are a few of the questions do present themselves: 1. What trust relationships must exist? . Are all modules loaded by an administration box controlled by the OPES box owner. . 2. What security measures must exist? . If security measures (such as AAA) are in place, to whom are we providing secure access for? Only the owner of the box, or would other trusted parties have access? 3. Is there any limit on functionality for proxylets from outside sources? . Sandboxing a java-based proxylet to disallow file access or socket connections. . Disallowing access to remote callout servers outside of the domain. 4. Are there other frameworks that are currently in place or soon will be? 5. How do we provide standardized accounting across ownership domains? . E.g. an ISP or CDN providing æpage hitÆ counts to a Content Provider. . E.g. the usage of an OPES proxylet. . Would this simply be a set of services implemented on OPES, or must OPES address this directly? Perhaps a set of services could be provided by OPES to facilitate accounting. Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 6] Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001 4. Intellectual Property 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 his 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 implementers 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. 5. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Michael Condry, Lily Yang, Christian Maciocco and Manasi Bhutani for their contributions to this OPES ownership model. 6. References [1] Tomlinson, G., and al., ôExtensible Proxy Services Frameworkö, Internet-Draft work in progress. [2] Yang, L., and al., ôOPES Architecture for Rule Processing and Service Executionö, Internet-Draft work in progress. [3] Beck, A., and M. Hofmann, "Proxy Specification Rule Language", Internet-Draft work in progress. [4] Maciocco, C., and al., " OPES Meta-data Markup Language û OMML ", Internet-Draft work in progress. 7. Disclaimer The views and specification herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of their employer. The authors and their employer specifically disclaim responsibility for any problems arising from correct or incorrect implementation or use of this specification. Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 7] Internet Draft OPES Network Taxonomy February 2001 8. Author's Address Robert Erickson Intel Corporation MS JF3-206 2111 NE 25th Ave. Hillsboro, OR 97124 Phone: +1-503-712-2016 E-Mail: Rob.Erickson@intel.com 9. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it maybe 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 then English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THEINTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLIAMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMAITON HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTEIS OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Erickson Expires August 2001 [Page 8]