--snip--snip--
yes, i agree with reinaldo, OPES exists independent of CDI
HERE I MADE ADD,
The concept of edge services as an overlay is ok, however,
the way that is presented in the draft is too restrictive for
the following reason(s)
Agreed. I think your wording is better. My whole point is that overlay
should be better defined/expanded, not removed from the doc.
- it assumes that each overlay is independent with a
seperate authorative entity.
------ here, we can extend the concept of an edge services
overlay to broder range, there is no restriction for several
access providers or ISPs to cooporate such that their edge
services become an extended overlay (an overlay of overlays).
- the overlays can also be combined, basically, a content
overlay can be defined that provide content to one or more
edge services overlays (or from above a virtual edge services
overlay that is composed of various edge services overlays).
- the same can be said about client overlays. (here, an
overlay can be defined that allow clients to roam across
various edge services overlay(s)).
in fact, the edge services overlay model can be used as an
alternative to the cdi peering model,
in this case, the content provider(s) can be though off as
having their own overlay(s). the edge services as another
overlay and the clients as an overlay.
Very Good Point.
for an OPES intermeiary (surrogate) to act on behalf of a
content source, it has to subscribe to the content overlay
(similar analogy can be used about surrogates or caches).
we can discuss the analogy further if there is interest
hope the above helps
abbie