ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

some suggestions for IRML

2001-02-12 14:43:56
Markus --
since you are updating the rule language spec (IRML). Here are a few things
you might want to consider:

1) I would like to see more straightforward support of "for-all" rules --
i.e., rules that trigger an action without any explicit property matching.
This could be useful for some accouting services or anything that applies to
all requests or responses. For example, OPES box wants to count all requests
made to this box. Currently, the old PSRL spec seems to suggest that (from
DTD) each <rule> element needs to contain at least one <property>
subelement, and the <action> element is contained inside the "property"
element. This structure can still achieve a "for-all" rule effect by, say,
matching URL against a wildcard pattern (which would always be true). But I
think a more direct support by allowing zero property pattern matching is
cleaner and more efficient as well.
But it would require bring out the "action" element outside of the nested
"property" element. So something like this:
        <rule>
                <property> ... </property>
                <property> ... </property>
                ...
                <action> ... </action>
        </rule>

2) Define both <ICAP> and <PROXYLET> element inside of <action> element to
include basic info for code binding and service execution, like service
name, namespace and version, etc.

3) Again, I do NOT like to see support of "request-body" and "response-body"
in the rule engine so that the rule engine does not even need to see the
body.

4) Is there a strong argument for feeding "modified" properties versus
original properties (i.e., headers) back to the rule engine in the rule
processing loop? One can argue that whatever behavior using "modified"
headers could be done equivalently by using only original properties(like
combining the sequential rules into one, even though might not as elegant as
it could be)? Using only original properties certainly has some
implementation advantage and perhaps better performance. Do we have any good
example to show one way versus the other?

Lily
        
-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Hofmann [mailto:hofmann(_at_)bell-labs(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 9:11 AM
To: Maciocco, Christian; ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: OPES protocols ?



Note that we will put out an
updated draft renaming PSRL into IRML - Intermediary Rule Markup
Language). 

-Markus




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>