Ian Cooper wrote:
Speaking of Figure 3, it's not immediately clear what's going on, making
the appearance of the data dispatcher box different to the callout
servers might help.
Hm, when looking at Figure 3 i nthe draft... I would assume the term
"callout server" refers to the box itself, thus being the
correspondence to "data processor", rather than being part of the
protocol stack as shown in Figure 3. It seems to me that something
like that would be more accurate.
data callout callout callout
processor server server server
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| data | | service | | servive | | service |
|dispatcher| | applic. | | applic. | | applic. |
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| | | | | | | |
| OCP | | OCP | | OCP | ... | OCP |
| | | | | | | |
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
| TCP/IP | | TCP/IP | | TCP/IP | | TCP/IP |
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+
|| || || ||
||================ || ... ||
|| || ||
||============================== ||
|| ||
================================================
The sort of design I might suggest would be that an OPES intermediary
maintains an audit of services that are applied, possibly for a limited
time. This audit should be accessible to affected clients using standard
features of the protocol whose flow is being OPES-serviced.
Seems reasonable, though would only work for a subset of the protocols
that might benefit from modifications these systems might offer. E.g.
if video stream is modified I'm not sure that it would be possible to
use the streaming delivery protocol to get acccess to the audit trail.
It does work for HTTP which was the primary target of this body of work
though.
Why restrict it to the standard features of the data flow protocol? I
would assume it's possible to indicate within the OPES trace HOW an
endpoint could access such audits, potentially allowing/using other
standard protocols (e.g. HTTP, FTP, or whatever). Architectural wise,
this should be covered by the current draft...
I'm also a little confused as to the apparent urgency to take this
document WG (and presumably wider) Last Call when many of the supporting
documents appear expired/non-existent in the I-D directory (perhaps it's
just the titles that have changed? I thought I had an up-to-date mirror
of the directory) making it impossible for the reader to fully
understand this document. (I.E. surely this document is just going to
sit in RFC-Editor's queue anyway.)
Marshall already responded on that one, and I fully second his comments.
-Markus