At 16:13 11/03/03, Abbie Barbir wrote:
Jfcm,
good points. The discussion really affect the consideration if we should
adopt SOAP or not.
I do think that TCP is needed. TCP provides many faetures that we need
(that is for the callout protocol).
Certainly. What I mean is that dependng on the where, speed, security,
interactivity, there may be many ways to implement the OPES protocl. I
suppose that IP will be used in most of the cases - not sure as it would
fit well under a qnet (QNX) system. So the envelopes could be very
different while the relation process between dispatchers and servers could
be the same.
jfc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jfcm [<mailto:info(_at_)utel(_dot_)net>mailto:info(_at_)utel(_dot_)net]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 10:14 AM
> To: Markus Hofmann; OPES Group
> Subject: Re: Draft Agenda for IETF 56
>
>
> My main question is about the entry and the ending points of the OPES
> concept. If it is accepted that not only HTTP but any
> protocol is OK, and
> that alternatively both end points can be user/producer or
> that we may have
> a peer to peer support, it will mean that any entry/output
> protocol is OK,
> including a keyboard/user file/application etc, towards a
> screen, a file, etc.
>
> This means there is no pseudo-synchoronous (like in hhtp)
> obligation (or as
> options).
> This means that we have a general purpose concept of a
> filter/transformer
> system on a flow.
> Which will standardize everywhere.
>
> This means that, the filter/transformer relation (callout
> protocol) can be
> anything from realtime to soap. Am I correct? Because this
> means that we
> will have a good general framework for a protected/acked
> balanced protocol
> able to support one to many or even many to many relations.
>
> Then the next question will be: will it always be under TCP? jfc
>
>
> At 13:02 10/03/03, Markus Hofmann wrote:
> >we want to continue the lively discussion on the mailing list at the
> >IETF
> >56 meeting in San Francisco next week.
> >
> >We intend to spend a few minutes provding a quick update on
> the status
> >of
> >our five submitted WG documents, and then go immediatelly
> over to the OPES
> >prototol work. Focus will be on resolving the higher-level issues,
> >starting with a discussion of major decision points for
> protocol design
> >and of the "protocol pre-draft" throughts. We will cover
> further topics
> >under "general discussion".
> >
> >If you've topics to be dicussed under "general discussion"
> and would be
> >interested to present in San Francisco, please send Marshall
> and myself a
> >note ASAP.
> >
> >Thanks,
> > Markus
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Open Pluggable Edge Services WG (opes)
> >======================================
> >Monday, March 17, 1530-1730
> >
> >CHAIR(S):
> > Marshall Rose <mrose(_at_)dbc(_dot_)mtview(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>
> > Markus Hofmann <hofmann(_at_)bell-labs(_dot_)com>
> >
> >TECHNICAL ADVISOR(S):
> > Allison Mankin <mankin(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu>
> > Hilarie Orman <ho(_at_)alum(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>
> >
> >AGENDA:
> > - Introduction, minutes taker, blue sheets
> > - Agenda bashing
> > - Status of WG documents
> > draft-ietf-opes-architecture-04
> > draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs-03
> > draft-ietf-opes-scenarios-01
> > draft-ietf-opes-authorization-02
> > draft-ietf-opes-threats-02
> > - Start on OPES protocol work
> > - Introduction
> > - Major decision points for protocol design
> > - OPES protocol pre-draft thoughts
> > - General discussion
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(<http://www.grisoft.com>http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03
>
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03