ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: OPES protocol, pre-draft

2003-02-19 11:19:52
reinaldo,
see inline,
 
abbie
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Penno, Reinaldo [BL60:0430:EXCH] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:21 AM
To: 'Alex Rousskov'; ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: OPES protocol, pre-draft



Before I make any comments, it seems to me this work has a lot of overlap
with things we already did. 

1. The examples are greatly covered in the use cases and deployment
scenarios 
2. Some other things seems to me that belong in the requirements draft. It
doesn't make any sense to have two drafts having requirements on the
protocol, moreover the sole purpose of one of them was to have all the
requirements. 

 

--- abbie

Yes, this is whay at some point i did state that 

3. The idea was to try to reuse a existing protocol instead of designing a
new one.  

well, this discussion will then lead to ok, what can we use if this is the
protocol that we have just designed. So, it does not hurt to do what we are
doing, actually it may be healthy. The best way to figure out if we can
reuse something is to design a protocol first and then say, woo it really
looks like ICAP or BEEP or ..... (SOAP)

 
4. There are two protocols for OPES, in-path and the callout. Are they going
to be the same, different?  

focus now on callout protocol.  

I guess what we need is to incorporate whatever requirements in a
bis/whatever version of the requirements draft, extend the use cases and
scenarios and for every protocol we think has a chance to be the OPES
protocol, match its semantics against the requirements draft, that's what a
requirement draft is for. 

If Alex's document is the bootstrap for the following deliverable 

"MAY 03 Initial protocol document for OPES services including their
authorization, invocation, tracking, and enforcement of authorization."

I guess it should be much more to the point and focused. Should we hold a
conf call to iron these things out? 

Chairs? 

I guess we should be also working on the rules specification?  

------abbie

why not?????? 


Regards, 

Reinaldo 

 SNIP

 

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