Thanks for the response Christian. I must be misunderstanding something.
If the rule owner doesn't know or care about the binding to a service
instance, what's being provided in the URL in the action?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maciocco, Christian" <christian(_dot_)maciocco(_at_)intel(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: RE: Service Binding Times (Re: Proxylet Downloading and metadata)
Hi Lee, comments in-line.
I mentioned this at the interim but only briefly. It seems
to me that we're getting our service binding times wrong. This may be
an
artifact of my confusion over whether we're discussing the Admin Service
(AS) or the Transit Intermediary (TI) when we discuss rules.
In the architecture to-date, we say that the XML form of the
rules are used both between the rule "owners" and the AS and between the
AS
and TI. In the actions, we bind to a specific instance of code.
I believe this early binding is completely inappropriate for
at least some of the rule owners who more than likely have no need nor
desire to know about the decisions made in a CDN regarding function
distribution. It is more reasonable, I think, but still undesirable for
the TI rule base to have these bindings specified in the rules.
The rule owner doesn't know/care about the binding. Binding is done at
the AS, the OPES entry point by the box(ex) operator. Service plug-in
will run on the local host. I assume that if they need to be a remote
service they'll instead become a callout service on ICAP/BEEP.
<snip>