Subject: RE: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-protocol- re qs-00.txt

From: "Rochberger, Haim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 01:47:22 +0300

Hi Markus,

Is it still possible to add this requirement ? I mean chaining callout
servers ?

This may improve the performance in case you have a few callout servers that
need to handle a specific message in order.
I can see that the plurality of servers is needed due to the spatiality of
each server - so they may not be able to all reside in one server.

Unless it is either too late to add such a requirement or it is not
acceptable from some reason, I can draft some description.

Warm regards,

Haim Rochberger
System Architect
Comverse
Mobile Internet & Broadband Division
Office: +972-3-766-9121
Mobile: +972-54-970-504
Email: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Hofmann [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2002 1:37 AM
To: Rochberger, Haim
Cc: OPES Group
Subject: Re:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opes-protocol- re
qs-00.txt

Rochberger, Haim wrote:

 > Is it required in the callout server protocol that the OPES
 > dispacher (or engine...) is able to specify both: the services
 > needed to be performed on a specific message, and WHO is to perform
 > these services, and also the order it is to be done?

Section 3.11 requires the protocol to provide a capability that allows 
indication of the service(s) to be performed on the message. The 
entity executing the requested service will be the destination of the 
callout message, i.e. you send the callout message to a callout 
server, and the callout server has to execute this service. There's no 
notion of chaining callout servers, or of further (iterative) dispatching.

-Markus

---

From: Andre Beck <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:28:59 -0500

Rochberger, Haim wrote:
> This may improve the performance in case you have a few callout servers 
> that need to handle a specific message in order.

Callout server chaining would add a lot of complexity to callout 
transactions and callout servers, e.g. in terms of error handling, 
fail-over, tracing, trust relationships etc. I can only see performance 
benefits in cases where the distance between the callout servers is 
shorter than the distance between the OPES processor and the callout 
servers. However, I think whenever the performance of callout 
transactions is critical, it is much more likely that the callout 
servers will be co-located with the OPES processor, i.e. in the same 
domain. Hence the distance between the OPES processor and callout 
servers would be similar to the distance between the callout servers and 
there wouldn't be much of a performance benefit any more with callout 
chaining.

-Andre