Re: Draft on Callout Protocol Requirements

[Mark Baker <distobj@xxxxxxx>]

> >> From what I can tell, the requirement for it seemed to pop out of figure
> > 4 in opes-model-00.  I believe that if that diagram were drawn with a
> > box just below the callout server, called a "OPES gateway intermediary"
> > (or surrogate), then that would prevent the need for a standardized
> > protocol.  The protocol between "OPES intermediary" and "OPES gateway
> > intermediary" would be the primary protocol of the chain of
> > intermediaries, and the protocol between "OPES gateway intermediary" and
> > the callout server wouldn't matter; whatever it happened to be, a
> > gateway could be developed to bridge the two protocols.
> 
> In the above, is the intent to have the OPES gateway intermediary 
> communicate with the OPES intermediary via software API or on-the-wire 
> protocol?

Protocol.

> If the latter then surely the standardized callout protocol becomes that 
> channel of communication (which means the protocol needs to consider 
> potential transcoding issues that may occur, er, yuk ;-) ).

No, the protocol between intermediaries is a transfer protocol, such as
HTTP, SMTP, SOAP/HTTP, etc..

We must be disconnected, but I'm not sure where.  Let's dig a little
deeper.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com