attached announcement is for an I-D that (hopefully) is of interest to
the OPES group.
Very interesting. Some questions (which probably just reflect my lack of
understanding):
1. What is the motivation for the ordering rules in section 4? It seems to
me that there may be different business arrangements which lead to different
choices of which rule module owner takes precedence. For example, ad
insertion on behalf of access providers, ad insertion on behalf of content
providers and ad removal on behalf of clients all conflict and the
resolution depends on local context like funding models, not on a globally
fixed order.
I can also imagine cases where interleaving the rules between different
(cooperating) module owners might be useful but perhaps the complexity rules
this out.
[BTW there may be a trivial typo here, I suspect the request points are
mis-numbered in either para2 or para4 of this section.].
2. A possible extension to the property naming rules (section 3.5.2) would
be to allow inter-proxylet communication by allowing one proxylet to add
property annotations to the message which can trigger later proxylets. For
example, I may have a proxylet which checks the P3P policy of the site to
generate an "acceptable-privacy-policy" annotation which in turn might
trigger later proxylets. This could be achieved by lifting the restriction
that property names be limited to actual protocol headers (plus the six
extension properties).
3. For the property value matching would it be appropriate to add an
additional attribute to the "property" element to control case-sensitivity
of the matching?
4. Is there a proposed namespace URI for this element set?
Dave Reynolds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories | Phone: +44-117-3128165
Filton Road, Stoke Gifford | FAX: +44-117-3128925
Bristol BS34 8QZ, UK | dave_reynolds(_at_)hpl(_dot_)hp(_dot_)com