Hi,
I have already sent comments on the latest Communications
draft (Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-05). The
ones marked with "S" could be worth discussing at the meeting. Here
is a high-level summary:
1. At what requirement level should OPES System
be traced?
2. At what requirement level should OPES processor
be traced?
3. Should the draft have requirements for other
specifications? For example, "application
binding specs MUST document X and Y".
4. Polish/discuss Trace and Tracing definitions.
5. Do we trace the order of service invocations
or service completions or something else? See S6
and related discussion/items.
6. [S19: Does bypass semantics mean "give OPES version if
non-OPES is not available" or "give an error if non-OPES
is not available"? This is very important to document
clearly because it affects bypass design/rules a lot.]
7. [S25: What can be bypassed? What does it mean to bypass X?]
Things to consider are "*" URIs and bypassing OPES
processors down the stream. Can processors be bypassed
at all?
8. Do we allow trace manipulations (see S31)?
9. Should we use a single HTTP header for all
trace entries to preserve order? If yes, how
to distinguish one OPES system entries from
another? This issue affects Tracing examples and
may affect some draft requirements as well.
Thank you,
Alex.