On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Abbie Barbir wrote:
Can u be more clear on what do u mean by system? Give an example
please.
You already have a definition of an OPES system. I do not mean
anything beyond that. An example would be a CDN doing distribution and
adaptation of an example.com web site.
An OPES System MUST include information that identifies, to the
technical contact, the OPES processors involved in processing the
message.
This contradicts the fact that OPES processor tracing is not
a MUST, does not it? Given this two contradicting
requirements, it is not clear whether an end is guaranteed a
processor trace entry for each processor involved. Please
resolve this important conflict.
OPES tracing is a MUST.
I do not see why u say contradicting statment.
I am talking about specific requirements you have in the draft. There
is no "OPES tracing is a MUST" requirement. However, there is a
requirement quoted above that implies that an OPES System MUST trace
every OPES processor. Since OPES System has to delegate actual actions
to processors, the above really means that an OPES processor MUST
trace itself. There is also a requirement on page 6 that "OPES
processor SHOULD add its entry to the trace". For me, there is a
requirement level conflict here. Either it is a SHOULD or a MUST, it
cannot be both.
Each OPES processor MUST support tracing, policy can be used to
turn tracing on and to determine its granularity.
I continue to note that the above requirement does not make much
sense to me. If a policy can be used, can I use a policy that
always turns tracing off and have that as the only, hard-coded
policy? I think this is a failed attempt to appear directly
compliant with an IAB consideration and it should be removed.
Alex, if your ploicy trun all processor off, then u r not compliant.
Why? I am not violating the "support" requirement above.
Alex.