Reinaldo Penno wrote:
Anyway, I guess that if the majority feels that capability negotiation is
not useful then we should edit the requirements draft and modify the MUST to
SHOULD or MAY. Otherwise it will seem strange that the protocol the WG
itself propose does not abide by its own requirements.
I didn't mean to rule out basic and required mechanisms for agreeing
on certain parameters. I just want to slow down on going down the road
of integrating too complex auto-negotiating mechanisms into the
callout protocol. The more we allow to negotiate, the more error cases
and special cases we've to consider, and the more complex and error
prone the protocol will be.
How can that be possible? The OPES processor needs to be addressed explicily
by the client, so it needs to deal with IP/TCP and application. If has to
implement a full TCP/IP stack. You might consider that "not part of OPES",
but the box in which OPES run clearly has to implement everything.
I can't recall to have said that a OPES processor wouldn't have to
implement TCP/IP. What I said was that the services and operations
OPES is concernd about are clearly at the application level, and not
at the network and transport level. See Hilarie's slides for
illustration.
-Markus