Thanks I will do that
Abbie Barbir wrote:
All,
interesting so far.
I really suggest that you read about WSDL, CDL, BPEl etc and draw
lines on what can be done in OPES vs Not. Mnay of your concerns
regarding service discovery, security, composition, binding etc has
been addressed there.
Abbie
-----Original Message-----
From: Geetha Manjunath [mailto:geetham(_at_)india(_dot_)hp(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 7:38 AM
To: Markus Hofmann
Cc: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: P work in new charter
(d) defining mechanisms by which a user can communicate
rulesets
to the OPES processor.
Such mechanism is needed (one might default to existing
ones), but
out of scope of the WG.
Can you please give me specific pointers to existing mechanisms
here? I would like
to evaluate their sufficiency for the intended usage.
For example, use a CLI to load a rules file locally on the
machine,
use FTP to transfer a rules file, you might use HTTP....
-Markus
Oh! I guess these are fine! I was wondering whether there
were any protocols along the lines of WPAD (Web Proxy
Auto-Discovery Protocol) for this.
The reason I raised the point about "mechanisms to
communicate the rules" was based on my trials of using IRML
in a practical OPES env. Though IRML did talk about rule sets
that included 3 classes of rules - (i)Rules set by OPES
administrator, (ii)Rules set by Content Provider and (iii)
Rules set by the user/client - there were several practical
problems in effecting the latter two cases. I guess the
question then boils down to "who are the targetted authors
that would use P language to write rulesets?". Clearly it is
(i) but do we include (ii) and (iii) ?
Thanks and regards
geetha