ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: IAB document

2001-12-09 13:50:17

Come prepaired to make your position at the BOF, it will be the critical time to sort this all out (at least for OPES). If OPES can make progress then Thursday will be more focused on impacts to other groups.

At 03:18 PM 12/8/2001, Joseph Hui wrote:


I wouldn't take the same liberty as you did in
interpreting Sally's reply or with the IAB's original
intent, not even in a wider context.  I wasn't nitpicking at
the wording either.  The wording was just fine in saying what
it apparently meant to say -- single-int, because it would
have made no sense to require the end user to address
multiple intermediaries at the IP level.  (Wouldn't an
OPES pipeline with the end user connecting to multiple
intermediaries separately look out of whack?)

What I've been driving at is whether clause 2.2 serves any
practical purpose at all, unless making life difficult for
OPES per se can be thought of as a practical purpose.

Anyway, the question had originally been addressed to the
IAB and the answer I got was frankly what I had expected
I'd get -- no pleasant surprise there.  So be it then.

Thanks for having chimed in.

Joe Hui
Digital Island, a Cable & Wireless company
===============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Cooper [mailto:ian(_at_)the-coopers(_dot_)org]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 5:18 PM
> To: Joseph Hui; ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
> Subject: RE: IAB document
>
>
> --On Friday, December 7, 2001 16:10 -0800 Joseph Hui
> <jhui(_at_)digisle(_dot_)net>
> wrote:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ian Cooper [mailto:ian(_at_)the-coopers(_dot_)org]
> >> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:33 PM
> >> To: Joseph Hui; ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
> >> Cc: Sally Floyd; Patrik Fältström; ned.freed-mrochek.com
> >> Subject: RE: IAB document
> > [snip]
> >> If implementors could argue their case that
> >> use of multiple intermediaries
> >> had the same overall effect as multiple proxylets on the same
> >> intermediary then I think this would sufficiently demonstrate
> >> that the recommendation had been addressed.
> >
> > However contriving with proxylets, they still can't satisfy the
> > clause if the intermediaries, each being a one-trick pony,
> > run on different IP hosts (as I shown in my use cases).
>
> But surely there's an implementation reason as to why each
> intermediary is
> a "one-trick pony", in that it's easier to deploy it that way
> for some
> reason?
>
> I agree there's an issue with the strict wording of the text.
>  What I said
> above was an attempt to address the *intent* of that text for
> implementors.
> From Sally's reply I think that's along the lines of how it
> was intended to
> be interpreted.  (I think you've identified a problem in the
> wording that
> wasn't anticipated when it was written; that problem seems
> tangential to
> what IAB was actually addressing when they made the recommendation.)
>

Michael W. Condry
Director,  Network Edge Technology


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>