[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [end points comm] OPES System


On 16:43 19/08/03, Alex Rousskov said: 
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, jfcm wrote:
> At 23:41 18/08/03, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> >
> >That's fine, but you need a better definition of a domain and/or
> >operator. The original "OPES domain is the area of reponsibility of
> >an operator" does not imply the above explanation.
> >
> >Also, since you leave domain boundaries for the operator to decide,
> >you need to explain how conflicts (two operators think they are
> >responsible for the same domain and instruct their processors to
> >update the trace accordingly) and misses (no operator claims
> >responsibility for a domain/processor).
>
> I must go. But I think better anyway to proceed with a general
> response and see what you objet as I do not understand your
> question. So I suppose there is confusion to clarify.
>
> Let stick to the Airline image. And let take the following analogy
> (different of the one I took with Markus, but as good and clearer
> here).
>
> A   jet        = processor
> An airline   = domain - area of responsibility of the ariline operator.
> An alliance (or a tour or a travel I organize, etc.) = a system
>
> Are all your questions answered or not?
> If not where are you difficulties coming from?
> The analogy or  from not addressed conflicts?

I can use the airline analogy to illustrate what is missing in your
definitions, though it may not be a perfect example:

Usually a good one. Let take it as long as it does not fail us.

Lack of responsibility:

here you confuse system and domain operator.

1. as a user you go and see the system. Since you chose the image of a tour operator, the ystem for the user is the group operator. Period.

2. as a tour operator. i.e. a system. Your problem is to find back the luggage. And believe me, from experience as an operator _every relevant infromation_ to do that is necessary.

        Your tour group arrives at the destination
        with their bags lost. They call you (the
        "system" contact point) to complain. You tell
        them that the bags are not your responsibility
        and they should check with the last jet airline.

Then they sue you and win.

They go to the last airline, Northwest Airlines.

Nroth West will not speak to them. They do not even know them as passengers. They only know you as a tour, etc....

        Northwest tells them that the last leg on their
        itinerary was operated by KLM and they have to
        complain to KLM. KLM says that based on their
        agreement with Northwest, Northwest is responsible
        for the lost baggage.

        Thus, your group has contacted three suspects and all refused
        to take responsibility. Since your definitions rely
        on somebody to accept/define responsibility, it is not clear
        who is at fault here.

I nover said that. I said that it is to people to accept to be a domain operator for a CPU/jet.
That is to have the responibility of a domain. I selfom saw a jet takingof without pilot.

Double responsibility:

        Upon arrival, your tour group discovers that they
        were awarded twice the miles they should have been
        because both KLM and Northwest airlines took the
        responsibility to award miles for the trip.

Who will complain :-)


        Each
        individual airline claims it had the right to do
        that since they can define the area of responsibility any way
        they want.

You probably missed one point again in confusing reponsibility and domain of responsibility (strange that such an obvious notion to any operational person can be a problem to you.). No CPU - jet - can have two owners or no owner. Fact of the life. You may tell your neighbor that his wife is yours, but usually law prevents this not to be a bug.
jfc