Actually, I am working on examples to update the deployment
scenarios document. We should see "what IMRL is needed
to do these examples"
At 08:02 AM 8/28/2001, Markus Hofmann wrote:
Andre Beck wrote:
> Good suggestion. I guess I originally wanted to keep the properties like
> "request-line" protocol-independent, but this doesn't really allow for
> very fine-grained rule conditions as you pointed out. So it probably
> makes more sense to have a set of very protocol-specific properties for
> each supported protocol (in addition to any protocol-independent
> properties). I will try to reorganize the draft a little bit to reflect
> this better in the next version.
We just recently discussed to better structure the draft and to
separate protocol specific elements from the generic elements. The
idea is that IRML defines a generic, protocol-independent "framework",
but allows addition of protocol-specific elements/profiles (e.g. HTTP
header fields for rule matching). We will probably separate out
protocol-specific elements/profiles into an appendix section of the
draft. In this case, Lily's suggestions can nicely be integrated and
would probably simplify rule handling.
-Markus
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology