Well we need to organize the "list of administrative
services" into an I-D for working group review.
At 10:09 AM 2/14/2001 -0800, Yang, Lily L wrote:
See my comments below in the text.
Lily
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Hofmann [mailto:hofmann(_at_)bell-labs(_dot_)com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:28 PM
> To: Yang, Lily L
> Cc: Maciocco, Christian; ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
> Subject: Re: OPES protocols ?
>
>
> > So to
> > achieve interoperability, either we stick with the second
> model, or we
> > define a standardized binary format. I would vote for the
> second model then.
>
> Ship it to the OPES box using IRML. I can't see the need for an
> additional, redundant binary format for the same purpose (i.e.
> exchange of rule sets).
That is what I voted for. I brought this up just to clarify -- So the Admin
box merely takes care of the loading of rule modules from some trusted
parties (making sure it is authorized and authenticated, etc.) and then it
would ship the rules out (in XML format) to (possibly) many OPES boxes. The
conflict checking and compilation is done locally on the OPES box.
>
> BTW - won't it be likely that the Admin "box" and the OPES "box" are
> physically on the same appliance? Why should rules first be shiped to
> some Admin box, getting validate and then being shipped to the OPES
> box? Distribute the rules sets right away to the OPES boxes and let
> them do the checking etc.
> -Markus
>
>
The Admin Box and the OPES box could be on the same box (in the form of OPES
appliances which are idea for customers like small ISPs), but it could also
be on different boxes so it can be deplyed in a CDN with one central Admin
box and many edge OPES devices. We should keep both deployment scenarios in
mind when we design the architecture to allow for both.
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology