Hi Andre,
Thanks for the quick reply.
I see your point, but since I see the callout servers as an "expert server"
who is giving a specific, non trivial service,
then I can see a model of such service providers who own those servers, and
whoever has a trusting relations with - it may give that service to, and
charge for it.
Now I don't think the issue should be whether they are close by or not, but
since there could be a situation that performance both on a specific
message, and the OPES engine, is important, then the question is if I can
propose to add an OPTION for the OPES engine to specify in the callout
protocol (whatever it will be) a list of the trusted servers and their
order, and insert a security signature on the list so that the chain of
trust can be achieved, and billing too. and add mechanism so that each
server on the chain must notify the OPES engine on his activity and status
in a secured way, This can eventually be an option that in the local domain
with no performance issues be ignored... but if the implementations WILL
need it and will not have it standardized - will not use this OPES mechanism
altogether.
I do understand that this is a "second stage" issue now - as the first
specification still on the way, but if someone volunteers to take this issue
under their wings...?
Are there other members who feel this should be at list optional ?
Warm regards,
Haim Rochberger
System Architect
Comverse
Mobile Internet & Broadband Division
Office: +972-3-766-9121
Mobile: +972-54-970-504
Email: Haim_rochberger(_at_)comverse(_dot_)com
<mailto:Haim_rochberger(_at_)comverse(_dot_)com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Beck [mailto:abeck(_at_)bell-labs(_dot_)com]
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2002 5:29 PM
To: Rochberger, Haim
Cc: Markus Hofmann; OPES Group
Subject: Re:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-protocol- re
qs-00.txt
Rochberger, Haim wrote:
Is it still possible to add this requirement ? I mean chaining callout
servers ?
This may improve the performance in case you have a few callout servers
that need to handle a specific message in order.
Callout server chaining would add a lot of complexity to callout
transactions and callout servers, e.g. in terms of error handling,
fail-over, tracing, trust relationships etc. I can only see performance
benefits in cases where the distance between the callout servers is
shorter than the distance between the OPES processor and the callout
servers. However, I think whenever the performance of callout
transactions is critical, it is much more likely that the callout
servers will be co-located with the OPES processor, i.e. in the same
domain. Hence the distance between the OPES processor and callout
servers would be similar to the distance between the callout servers and
there wouldn't be much of a performance benefit any more with callout
chaining.
-Andre