[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Protocol next steps
My Franglish tells me that processing a service is to run the program
which delivers the service. Not to remotly filter requests for that
service (which may abort, not be delivered, be negociated) through
Also, that a server may only participate into providing a service. My
understanding is therefore - but again it is based upon a non native
understanding of the language - that an OPES processor is the called-out
system of servers providing the service.
Example: the Root Server System is the DNS root service processor called
out by the ISP's resolver, after it acted as a dispatcher checking on its
cached addresses. The DNS being a distributed OPES modifying the
http/smtp flow adding an IP address where the user has only entered an
URL. I would hardly say that the resolver is the DNS processor vs Name
On 21:32 02/04/03, Abbie Barbir said:
some basic terminology need to be addressed in the ocp
I think we should stick with OPES Processor and Callout
we can mention that they operate like a client/server, but
the same terminology as in the arch doc should be followed.
I am working my way into editing changes to the doc that
will follow soon.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Hofmann
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:53 PM
> To: ietf-openproxy@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Protocol next steps
> Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > Given the above, I think we should publish as an
> draft to
> > give everybody enough time for a thorough review
while allowing new
> > revisions to be discussed and published. Those
that do not have a
> > problem with the draft becoming a WG document can
treat it as such
> > immediately.
> > Submitting an individual draft should not hurt
anything, should it?
> > Skipping that step would be nice, but it is not a
big deal. I will
> > submit an individual draft in ~12 hours unless
somebody stops me.
> > Let's move on...
> Yup, please go ahead and publish as individual draft,
> don't want to
> delay this. We'll keep moving the draft forward on this
> with input from the entire WG, with the goal to submit
> version of the draft as WG document. This way, we do
> making progress, we immediately have a valid reference
> folks still have some time to carefully look at the
> However, please
note: Possible concerns with the content of the
> document must be brought up while we're working on the
> There will *not* be a separate review time or such like
once the next
> version is ready for submission (as WG document).
Concerns should be
> expressed while we're on the path to the next
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: