[Top] [All Lists]


2003-04-22 17:48:46



-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov(_at_)measurement-factory(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 7:51 PM
To: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: SOAP and OCP

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:

If there's a real need for having multiple callout protocols, let's 
have a discussion and see whether there's WG consensus to do so. 
Otherwise, I'd suggest we focus on getting a single callout 
done right, and base the companion documents around this protocol.

Leaving too many options seems like a simple way to overcome 
controversy and to make everybody happy, but it might not always be 
the best choice in technical design.

I agree; you may have misinterpreted what we are after:

OPES architecture already assumes that adaptation can be done 
by means other than OCP. Thus, we are not increasing 
complexity or adding anything really new. We are simply 
making a statement that OPES framework (tracing, bypass, and 
such) should not depend on OCP because OCP is not the only 
allowed way to do adaptation!

The fact that SOAP may be used as a callout protocol is just 
a side-effect of the above statement. We will not focus on 
SOAP. We will focus on "our" OCP. "How to use SOAP as an OPES 
callout protocol" draft may (should??) end up having a single 
normative sentence:
      use "as is"

Does this approach work for you?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>