ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Draft Agenda for IETF 56

2003-03-12 08:19:20
Hello Abbie,

I guess there are two approaches here:

1) Making extensions for every single application protocol that might use
OPES.
  ...Although some people that in realitly we will have maybe 4 (HTTP, RTP,
SMTP, FTP).

2) Developing an out of band protocol to signal such preferences. That's why
I said in the past looking at NSIS could be interesting if we feel the list
in 1) is already big/complicated enough or might grow.

There is also the practical uses of either approaches. Certainly,
negotiating with the OPES processor what will/not receive treatment every
single HTTP session could add a lot of overhead. Although HTTP could be used
to negotiate, I guess we should have provisions to say "bypass OPES for all
HTTP sessions, until I say otherwise", or vice-versa.

Regards,

Reinaldo


-----Original Message-----
From: Barbir, Abbie [CAR:1A00:EXCH] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:06 AM
To: Markus Hofmann; OPES Group
Subject: RE: Draft Agenda for IETF 56


Markus, 
it all do with HTTP extension etc. 
I will detail later, 
abbie 


-----Original Message----- 
From: Markus Hofmann [mailto:markus(_at_)mhof(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:28 AM 
To: OPES Group 
Subject: Re: Draft Agenda for IETF 56 



Abbie Barbir wrote: 

At this point, the issues of notification/tracing have not been 
brought up (yet?). 

Absolutley correct and an important point!! Is there anything me must 
consider in the callout protocl design for tracing and 
notification? I 
would assume so... Any thoughts? 

While probably separate from the callout protocol design, we 
also need 
to discuss possible impact on the application message protocol, for 
example for an "OPES bypass" mechanism. This refers to the 
requirement 
that a user must be able to signal an OPES processor that (s)he wants 
to bypass any OPES service (one of the IAB requirements)  - 
as briefly 
discussed some time earlier, using (user-defined?) HTTP headers might 
be an option.... So we also need to consider possible 
impact/extensions on the application message protocol. Anyone some 
thoughts on this one? 

-Markus 



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