At 21:40 07/04/03, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> 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.)
True. However I feel some wordings may have lead to some orientations.
I was refering to out-bound in the same direction and call-out.
What ever word is right and clear is good for me. But just think that
we will probably have many OPES acting in a daisy chain way
(to start with two your way OPES on the same flow : one on the
caller and one one the server side).
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.
In my own intuitive wording (sorry, I cannot keep thinking otherwise)
there is a dispatcher calling out on service processors.
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"?
I do not think so, except a possible wording of "out-boud, in-bound"
chosen terms. Hence my remark.
jfc