Alberto --
Just one suggestion:
In "Introduction", the draft states that:
There are two major components in our architecture: 1. Transaction semantics
-- "How do I ask for adaptation?" 2. Control of Policy -- "When am I
supposed to ask for adaptation, what kind of adaptation do I ask for, and
from where?"
And it proceeds to say that icap only address the first part, and "ICAP is
of limited use without the second part: an accompanying application
framework in which it operates. The more difficult issue is beyond the scope
of the curernt ICAP protocol, but is planned in future work."
I think technically it would be very helpful if the draft would refer to the
OPES work right here. Since that is exactly what OPES is trying to tackle --
to set up a framework to allow end-points to authorize the services and
invoke the services. Maybe OPES is more than that. But at least OPES is
tring to answer the questions in the second part to a large extent. So it is
not just work planned in the future any more. It might have been the case
when ICAP forum just started one and half year ago. But it is not the case
any more. It might not be the best framework for that purpose. There might
be other competing work-in-progress as well. If they exist, they all deserve
a brief reference just like OPES.
I am speaking of this purely from technical point of view for the sake of
completeness and usefulness to the readers. Any reader that cares about ICAP
would also care about the application framework (as the draft stated).
When you plan to take the draft to the standard status, then it might not be
appropriate to refer to non-standard-status work (I vaguely remember
something like that).
Lily
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-openproxy(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-openproxy(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
Alberto Cerpa
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 4:48 PM
To: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: New ICAP draft
Hi all,
Here is the draft we promised to deliver by the end of this week. The
draft can be found at:
http://www.circlemud.org/~jelson/icap-1.72.txt
We think it is pretty well polish and a cleaner version. We have tried
to incorporate in it all the comments we received from the
list the last
couple of weeks. We hope to receive further comments form the group in
the following weeks. Let us reemphasize that this is just a
draft, and
we will probably update it as we receive feedback from the group.
The plan is to submit another draft to the list after we receive some
comments, then generate a new updated draft and submit it as an I-D.
After a couple of weeks for yet another round of comments and
suggestions we would like to finally submit it as an RFC
Informational.
Comments are very welcome.
Regards,
Jer & Al.