hi,
+1
abbie
-----Original Message-----
From: The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman
[mailto:ho(_at_)alum(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:21 PM
To: info(_at_)utel(_dot_)net
Cc: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: is IDNA an OPES?
A proxy can be co-located with an application, using the same
protocol as if they were are different machines. However,
this doesn't seem to be a preferred implementation method,
probably due to the overhead involved. The more usual path
is that someone defines an API that can be implemented
through direct subroutine calls, and then extends this to
work with RPC's for remotely located services. The advantage
being, of course, that one can write the callout service once
and have it run locally or remotely.
I think most browsers are already extensible, in their own
ways, and while it would be gratifying to have them switch to
using a standard method that is compatible with OPES servces,
I don't see much reason for that to happen. Our focus for
the IETF is on services that benefit from running remotely -
because the services are more efficient when amortized over
many connections or some other engineering reason.
Surely there are other kinds of services that could run
either remotely or locally, or services that are best run
locally, but these will have to grow and flourish without
diverting the attention of this WG. It's fine to discuss
such possibilities, but keep in mind that they cannot be the
motivating examples for design decisions.
Hilarie