On 19:09 07/04/03, Alex Rousskov said:
> 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?
YES. Everything which clarfy what we talk about is an absolute need.
> 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.
Data seems appropriate. However this remark seems of interest to quote.
In the Minitel X.25 system for example I am investigating, the size of the
Message may be of interest if it is smaller than the X.15 window size. It
may make the transfer extremely fast.
> and application/OPES connection?
Application connections are out of OCP scope. Should we state that
explicitly?
ABSOLUTELY. For the same reasons.
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?
Would these sessions represent the whole message transiting
through OCP towards as many services as required ? If yes I
would accept the concepts. Interaction otherwise? A session
would be all the OCP interactions that a message may perform
from the dispatcher to services until sent to the user. So you
could talk of the OPES session. Makes sense in French, but I
do not know if it is the same in English.
> 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".
You sure you want to use OPES Processor the way you do?
For me it is opposed to every standard thinking I know.
jfc