ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

FW: [OPES architecture] Standard Callout Protocol

2002-05-23 10:59:30


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Hui [mailto:Joseph(_dot_)Hui(_at_)exodus(_dot_)net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:44 PM
To: Graham Klyne; Barbir, Abbie [CAR:1A00:EXCH]
Cc: OPES Group
Subject: [OPES architecture] Standard Callout Protocol


OPES was widely (and is hopefully no longer?) perceived as
a precarious proposition due to the intermediaries between
two endpoints.  Throwing callout semantics in the mix further
exacerbated the trepidation.  A standardized callout protocol,
or a standardized callout interface to some protocols, will 
IMV go a long way towards assuring potential users of OPES's
viability in terms of making callouts less untenable from
a security perspective.  It's very hard, if not impossible,
to secure the unexpected; and non-standardization offers
plenty of surprises.

Joe Hui
Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
=========================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK-lists(_at_)ninebynine(_dot_)org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 4:55 PM
To: Abbie Barbir
Cc: OPES Group
Subject: Re: [ OPES architecture] Final Points of 
Discussion: Tracing



1-5 seem to broadly reflect my stated views.

Regarding 6:  contrary to the wording below, I now see, and 
agree, the 
desirability of a standard callout protocol, namely multivendor 
interworking between data dispatchers and service processes.

#g
--

At 09:58 AM 5/22/02 -0400, Abbie Barbir wrote:

Graham and all,

I am providing a summary of the current position and feedback.
This will be points that we try to get agreement on.

1. endpoint-user must be able to access OPES diagnostic
   information using legacy s/w.
2. have no problem with protocol extensions being available to
   facilitate access to the information.
3. not opposed to using In-band information even if it means 
extensions
4. keeping a log could be quite sufficient
5. having out of band access from one endpoint or the other 
is a far better
   outcome than having none
6. (From mark baker) No need to standardize on a callout protocol.

Here I propose that we start a new thread where each point 
is discussed 
and get solved.

abbie

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK(_at_)NineByNine(_dot_)org>



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • FW: [OPES architecture] Standard Callout Protocol, Abbie Barbir <=