[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FW: feedback: OCP version head_sid2 thread: Try 2
On Sun, 6 Apr 2003, Abbie Barbir wrote:
> > > From: The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman [mailto:ho@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >
> > > Here are my suggestions for rewarding the opening ... I think
> > > this addresses some of the concerns. Note the questions at the end.
Good stuff, thank you! I would just polish the parts that imply that
OCP deals with application message modification (it does not, the
protocol just shovels data and metadata between the two agents,
essentially). You should expect this text in the next draft version
> > > Question: MUST all the messages forwarded from an application
> > > connection be on the same OCP connection? I can't determine
> > > this from the requirements doc.
You cannot determine this because there is no such rule/implication.
There is no required relationship between OCP connections and
application connections. The latter may not even exist!
We cannot document all non-existing rules, of course, but I will add a
note to avoid any confusion.
> > > Question: Should we be more careful about the notion of an
> > > application message (header and payload), applicaton message
> > > transmittal unit ("chunk"), and application/OPES connection?
Yes, this is what this thread is about! How to define what an
application message is given that the definition is really up to the
OPES processor _and_ the callout server. I will try to polish some
more to say just that.
> > > For my own part, I'd find it helpful if people would use
> > > standard terms for these, because it's so easy to become
> > > confused about which part is meant. Usually it doesn't
> > > matter for "messages", so I think we also need a term meaning
> > > "anything sent on the application connection".
Application connections are out of OCP scope. In some environments,
they might be referred to in metadata, but metadata is opaque to OCP.