On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, jfcm wrote:
At 19:57 13/08/03, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:
Here is where I would start:
OPES system: OPES system is a set of OPES entities
defined for a given application message. The formation of an
OPES system is recursive: OPES system starts with either data
provider or data consumer (for the given message); OPES system
then includes any OPES entity trusted by (accepting authority
from) an entity already in the OPES system. The trust and
authority delegation is viewed in the context of the given
application message. As implied by the above definition, some
OPES entities in the system may not participate in the
processing of a given message.
OK for that definition with two provisions:
1. the recursiveness makes it potentially an illimited ectoplasm
what I accept in principle if you read Open in that sense.
Not sure I follow. Are you objecting to potentially unlimited size of
the set?
Nevertheless I prefer my own approach of saying that a system is
organized by someone because of the differences in the system, usage
and awareness depending on who organize it. This permits me to
qualify as a boarderless system as most probably a structural bug?
IIRC, you proposed to define OPES system as "a system organized to
permit its users to obtain a set of open puggable edge services."
While that make sense, it allows for more than two OPES systems to
exist for a given application message being adopted. Thus, it
complicates tracing/bypass requirements and raises end-to-end/IAB
concerns.
My definition is essentially the same except a particular formation
mechanism is embedded to prevent more than two (one "provider" and one
"consumer") systems to co-exist. The two definitions can probably be
merged:
OPES system: A set of OPES entities organized by (or on behalf
of) either a data provider or data consumer for
adaptation of a given message.
Alex.