Subject: Communication draft issues for f2f discussion

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:45:18 -0700 (MST)

Hi,

	I have already sent comments on the latest Communications
draft (Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-05). The
ones marked with "S" could be worth discussing at the meeting. Here
is a high-level summary:

	1. At what requirement level should OPES System
	   be traced?

	2. At what requirement level should OPES processor
	   be traced?

	3. Should the draft have requirements for other
	   specifications? For example, "application
	   binding specs MUST document X and Y".

	4. Polish/discuss Trace and Tracing definitions.

	5. Do we trace the order of service invocations
	   or service completions or something else? See S6
	   and related discussion/items.

	6. [S19: Does bypass semantics mean "give OPES version if
	    non-OPES is not available" or "give an error if non-OPES
	    is not available"? This is very important to document
	    clearly because it affects bypass design/rules a lot.]

	7. [S25: What can be bypassed? What does it mean to bypass X?]
	   Things to consider are "*" URIs and bypassing OPES
	   processors down the stream. Can processors be bypassed
	   at all?

	8. Do we allow trace manipulations (see S31)?

	9. Should we use a single HTTP header for all
	   trace entries to preserve order? If yes, how
	   to distinguish one OPES system entries from
	   another? This issue affects Tracing examples and
	   may affect some draft requirements as well.

Thank you,

Alex.