On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 bindignavile(_dot_)srinivas(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com wrote:
I always thought of the OPES processor as an L7 switch (as in
Markus's view) with limited storage capability. That limits all the
storage capacity to the ends of the network. A web proxy server
might be considered as a Content Provider (one of the ends of the
OPES connection as in architecture draft) rather than as a OPES
processor.
OPES architecture draft defines two possible locations for an OPES
system (including the OPES dispatcher): a content producer side (e.g.,
a surrogate in front of an origin server) and a content consumer side
(e.g., a forward proxy at the company firewall). I think we should
support both placements.
As a first attempt, I vote that the protocol that this WG comes out
with considers the OPES processor as a bare-bones L7 switch, without
much storage capability!
This assumption is not going to simplify the protocol by much.
Essentially, you would be able to remove all features related to
[copied] flag. There are not that many (yet?). On the other hand,
"copy" mode is a very powerful optimization in many environments; it
would be sad to see it go.
Thanks,
Alex.