Becoming your own CA: Some interesting discussion on it in Tim Berners-Lee's
recent book - Weaving the Web - I think a whole chapter on this subject -
most of it in line with the discussion on this thread in the past few days.
Real bottleneck is - how the hell does an arbitrary web service
I apologize for asking, but...
I have been reading the ietf-opes.org pages again and I still can't get
a good hold on what OPES is trying to accomplish. There are a lot of
drafts listed on the site that discuss several scenarios like content
peering, edge caching, etc., and while that's all nice
The best doesn't always win.
The cheapest often does.
Look at VHS over Betamax.
Look at Token Ring over Ethernet.
:o)
-Original Message-
From: Einar Stefferud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
And so:-)... May the best technology win!
In general, the best does win, in due
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Why is it not acceptable to have one host or its owner approve of such a
use?
Because both the content originator and the content receiver should be
able to veto (say) ad insertion.
But the content originator could have just as easily done
There seems to be consensus that OPES services would have to be
authorized explicitly and must not be transparent to both end-points.
This is in line with the discussion we had at the OPES BOF in
Minneapolis and is also reflected in the group description on the web
page (Intermediary
The semantic confusion here is caused by
the total lack of any definition of BEST;-)...
It is very hard to navigate in this landscape
without a topological map!
We don't even know here which way is UP or DOWN.
Time to leap up a meta level or two, beyond this level of babel.
I think Vernon is
I am not sure IPv16-Compliant systems will be viewed as cheap
IPv16-Compliant Technical Requirements
--
NEBS - Network Equipment Building Standard
FCC, UL, etc.
24 Cabinet Form Factor Front/Rear Access
Dual -48vDC Power Grid
Redundant copper 10/100 Ethernet Connections (IPv8)
Markus Hofmann wrote:
Brian,
Because both the content originator and the content receiver should be
able to veto (say) ad insertion.
What about services that are executed only on behalf of the content
receiver? Virus scanning might be one example.
Other examples might be services
offhand, I haven't thought of a service for which the consent of
both parties should be required.
A data escrow facility would seen to be an example of such a service.
But even if examples of this are hard to come by, I don't think it would
justify not including the ability to obtain consent
http://www.orangejumpuitorangejuice.com
Note: forwarded message attached.
=
James Farrell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
ATTACHMENT part
http://www.orangejumpuitorangejuice.com
Note: forwarded message attached.
=
James Farrell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
ATTACHMENT part
At 01:29 PM 6/19/2001 -0700, Kevin Farley wrote:
I believe OPES-like services are already creeping in. Consider wireless
systems where a great deal of compression is employed to reduce data
streams. This includes proprietary mechanisms to re-publish graphics
and web pages to reduce bandwidth
At 12:18 PM 6/20/2001 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Content/data is/are already being changed/modified/adapted/etc in
transit and
the IETF must deal with it sooner or later.
that follows only if the IETF can make a useful contribution by dealing
with it.
it's not clear whether this is the
Earn up to $500K in 120 Days Sending Email!!
Note
Transmissions to you by the sender of 'this' email will be stopped promptly by sending
an e-mail with
unsubscribe in the subject line. Simply hit reply and send
Dear Sir/Madam,
Division RisTI, the R D division of PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia, Tbk, the
incumbent telecomunication operator in Indonesia will present and host the
TPE - Connectivity Indonesia 2001, the theme: Internet and Multimedia
Opportunity for All. It will be held on 10-14 October 2001.
15 matches
Mail list logo
