Alex,
I have one generic comment that I will provide, despite your
request, in order to motivate my specific suggestions below. The
proposed text is too long and too detailed. Boiler plate purpose
should be to position the reader in the right place within the OPES
document hierarchy, not to explain subtle features and shortcomings of
every document. Let's try to make it shorter.
Agreed - I like simpler and shorter :) I've taken your suggestions -
see below for new boiler plate.
[Is the requirements document important at this point in time? Isn't
it more like an internal, temporary document to guide protocol
development process? Does the requirements document contain anything
that will help the reader of other documents? Can we drop the above
paragraph or at least leave it in OCP Core only?]
Agreed, either way is fine by me. But since the protocol requirements
draft is WG output, it might be helpful to include it here, just so
that people know the context. IF there are no strong feelings, let's
keep it in. If some one objects, I wouldntt mind taking it out.
"OPES Callout Protocol Core" [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-ocp-core-03]
specifies a protocol core to be used for the communication between
OPES processor and callout server.
I addedd "...specifies an application agnostic protocol core..."
I'd suggest to use the version of the boiler plate below. If no one
objects, could the authors please add the boiler plate to the
currently open documents (i.e. documents not yet submitted to IESG/in
RFC Ed queue).
Thanks,
Markus
=====================================================
OPES Document Map
This document belongs to a large set of OPES specifications produced
by the IETF OPES Working Group. Familiarity with the overall OPES
approach and typical scenarios is often essential when trying to
comprehend isolated OPES documents. This section provides an index of
OPES documents to assist the reader with finding "missing" information.
The document on "OPES Use Cases and Deployment Scenarios"
[I-D.draft-ietf-opes-scenarios] describes a set of services and
applications that are considered in scope for OPES and have been used
as a motivation and guidance in designing the OPES architecture.
The OPES architecture and common terminology are described in "An
Architecture for Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES)"
[I-D.draft-ietf-opes-architecture].
"Policy, Authorization and Enforcement Requirements of OPES"
[I-D.draft-ietf-opes-authorization] outlines requirements and
assumptions on the policy framework, without specifying concrete
authorization and enforcement methods.
"Security Threats and Risks for OPES" [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-threats]
provides OPES risk analysis, without recommending specific solutions.
"OPES Treatment of IAB Considerations" [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-iab]
addresses all architecture-level considerations expressed by the IETF
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) when the OPES WG was chartered.
At the core of the OPES architecture are the OPES processor and the
callout server, two network elements that communicate with each other
via an OPES Callout Protocol (OCP). The requirements for such protocol
are discussed in "Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols"
[I-D.draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs].
"OPES Callout Protocol Core" [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-ocp-core-03]
specifies an application agnostic protocol core to be used for the
communication between OPES processor and callout server.
"OPES entities and end points communications"
[I-D.draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-05] specifies generic tracing and bypass
mechanisms for OPES.
The OCP Core and Communications documents are independent from the
application protocol being adapted by OPES entities. Their generic
mechanisms have to be complemented by application-specific profiles.
"HTTP adaptation with OPES" is such an application profile for HTTP.
It specifies how application-agnostic OPES mechanisms are to be used
and augmented in order to support adaptation of HTTP messages.
Finally, "P: Message Processing Language"
[I-D.draft-ietf-opes-rules-p-02] defines a language for specifying
what OPES adaptations (e.g, translation) must be applied to what
application messages (e.g., e-mail from bob(_at_)example(_dot_)com). P language
is meant for configuring application proxies (OPES processors).