Re: [end points comm] OPES System

Very very strong objection to this.
- military forces in Iraq are a military system made to free Iraq by GW Bush
- UK milirary forces in Iraq are a Bristh domain of forces contributing to 
that system
- Polish miliratry forces could join the system in Irak at a latter stage.

In no way the US, the UK and the Polish domain can quailfy as the self 
sustainable military system that GW Bush deemed necessary to protect the 
world from Iraqi mass destruction weapons.
I just picked that controversial image because it will be clearer to 
everyone. And that every one will easily understand that there are many 
differences/gateays between US, UK , Polish military domains in terms of 
equipment, security, chains of commands, standards, languages, operation 
protocols, etc.
Defining OPES is like definining the Iraqi strategy. Defining the OPES 
system as definiing the way for the user (GWB) will organize the necessary 
resources. Talking of OPES domains is like defining the possible 
independent contributions to the OPES system.
jfc


On 15:59 12/08/03, Markus Hofmann said:
> jfcm wrote:
>
> > An OPES system is a system organized to permit its users to obtain a 
> > single or a coordinated set of open puggable edge services. Such a system 
> > can be statically and/or dynamically organized by its user, the community 
> > of its users, a host provider or any other third party. An OPES domain is 
> > the part of an OPES system belonging to a given operator. An OPES domain 
> > is not a sub-OPES system as it may need external ressources to provide 
> > services. OPES domains have no incidence  on the structure of an OPES 
> > system, but they may influence its organization for different reasons 
> > such as security, payment, quality of service, delivery parameters, etc. 
> > particularly in the case of  dynamicly prioritized organization and 
> > revamping choices.
> I basically agree, but I don't see the need to formally define the term 
> "OPES system". If we've the notion of an OPES domain as indicated above - 
> in which draft and where would we need the term "OPES system"?
> Let's simply say that "An OPES domain describes all OPES entities operated 
> by a single provider". I would assume that's all we need in the context we 
> talked about.
> Also, please keep in mind Hilarie's view on the need to identify every 
> single OPES processor and post your thoughts to the list. If consensus 
> would be that each single OPES processor needs to be identified, we might 
> not even need the notion of an "OPES domain".