Markus,
although I agree with the simple approach, the idea is to have a capability
negotiation scheme that can be extended to negotiate whatever people want.
The WG itself should standardize only a few parameters such as version
number, keep-alive, etc.
would you agree?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Markus Hofmann" <markus(_at_)mhof(_dot_)com>
To: "OPES WG (E-mail)" <ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on ocp-00
Reinaldo wrote:
Are we talking about the same thing? This is already a MUST on the
requirements draft. We have several parameters that need to be
negotiated
that have (a priori) nothing to do with the application
protocol/bindings
OCP will be carrying. They are go from basic things like version number
to
performance, security, etc.
The intention behind this requirement was to allow for very basic, but
fundamental and absolutely required parameter exchange. It should
*not* be seen as justification for very complex capability
auto-negotiation schemes. Key point - keep it simple, any added
complexity will have to be justified with a very specifc "must-have"
example.
-Markus