Well,
it is getting interesting.
I would like each one of us (all Protocol participant)to state what we have
agreed on so far from their point of view (from the various threads, it is
hard to figure that out).
I would like to make a summary of yes and no and maybe's for the protocol
that could be (after further enhancements) presented in SFO.
abbie
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov(_at_)measurement-factory(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:19 PM
To: The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman
Cc: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: SMTP filtering use case
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote:
It's very difficult to satisfy the IAB concerns by saying
that callout
servers will handle all policy - we aren't specifying the callout
server applications.
We are specifying the protocol the OPES server MUST implement
to be called an OPES server. Our protocol may specify
requirements that can only be satisfied if OPES processor and
OPES server work together and do not violate each-other
assumptions. That approach can both satisfy the IAB concerns
and allow for different implementations/integrations of
processors and servers to exist.
In other words, ideally, we should only care about the
visible end-to-end effect (the black-box approach) of a compliant
processor+server combo, not about what a particular OPES processor or
server may end up doing to satisfy our MUSTs.
I think that scenarios which can be satisfied by a switch are just
fine, but if they can be deployed today without any new protocols,
then they aren't topics for discussion in this WG, except
as negative
examples, i.e., "you don't need OPES for that".
If they are deployed today without OPES, they will violate
IAB concerns/requirements. That is why we are chartered, in
part, to produce a new protocol that addresses IAB concerns.
Alex.