ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: feedback: OCP version head_sid2 thread: Try 2

2003-04-07 12:40:49

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, jfcm wrote:

At 17:44 07/04/03, Alex Rousskov wrote:
That is, whatever OPES processor is sending is considered "original"
from OCP point of view.
When working on OCP, we need to try really hard to look at things from
OCP point of view and not from the application "ends" point of view.

I understand that, everyone in here understand that, but think of
the reader.

He will consider that "orginal" means "as initially entered in the
OPES Processor" (I definitly hate that OPES Processor word for the
dispatcher here, I do understand the other way around :-).

Could we not use someting as "out-bound" and "in-bound" IRT the used
"call-out" protocol. It would be consistent.

OK, it is a "choice of a word" question. I think it is very important
to use "right" words. Fortunately, it is easy to change the words in
the draft so we have time to find good ones. (I am more concerned
about the actual definitions and protocol specifics now.)

Anyway, since the communication is between two entities (OPES
processor and callout server), it is difficult for me to guess which
one is "out-bound". "Out" depends on whether you are looking from OPES
processor or callout server point of view. We already have
output/input for OPES processor, where there is no confusion since we
are talking about a single entity (the processor) in the middle of a
pipe.

Protocols often use request/response terms in these situations.
Perhaps we can use "request data" and "response data" instead of
"original" and "adapted"? I kind of like "adapted" though. It is the
"original" that's confusing.

More suggestions?


Also nothing prevents the returning in-bound message to be identical
to the original if no change was performed.

True, except, perhaps, for tracing requirements. Recall that "seeing
the application data" is a form of adaptation (by definition) because
if I can see it, then I can log it; and if I log it, then the user may
want to know my privacy policy.

If we ignore tracing issues, is there some wording that makes a reader
think that "something prevents returning identical messages"?

Alex.