From: The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman
[mailto:ho(_at_)alum(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu]
Question: Should we be more careful about the notion of
an application message (header and payload),
OCP does not distinguish between application message header and
application message payload. OCP treats the entire message as an
opaque sequence of octets. Should we explicitly state that "header"
and "payload" are not visible to OCP?
applicaton message transmittal unit ("chunk"),
I think WG drafts use the term "fragment" instead of "chunk". Fragment
may be preferred to avoid collision with HTTP chunked encoding (OCP
fragment may spawn HTTP chunk boundaries, of course). Comments?
Note that OCP does not use "fragment" much. OCP mostly uses "data"
which stands for both a "application message fragment" and a "complete
application message". Suggestions for a better term to describe both
complete and partial application messages are very welcome.
and application/OPES connection?
Application connections are out of OCP scope. Should we state that
explicitly?
There are no OPES connections, but Hilarie is probably talking about
OCP connections. Abbie suggests to rename OCP connections to
"sessions". Which term would you prefer?
For my own part, I'd find it helpful if people would use standard
terms for these, because it's so easy to become confused about which
part is meant.
Yes, we just need to agree on the "standard".
Thanks,
Alex.