Subject: draft-ietf-opes-architecture-01: Feedback

From: "Abbie Barbir" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:22:27 -0400

The -01 architecture draft has been submitted.

However, from the feedback that I have recieved there is still a need for
-02 version to fix some minor issues.

Can you please try to provide your input before friday, since my plan is to
have -02 ready by early monday.

Please use this new thread for the feedback.

thanks

abbie

---

From: "Oskar Batuner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:07:38 -0400

1. [Page 4]

>OPES rules: these determine how a given data flow is modified by
>      an OPES entity.

This statement may leave impression that rules describe data
transformation.

I think the purpose of rules is better described as:

"specify when and how to execute OPES intermediary services"

<this is taken from draft-beck-opes-irml-01>
---------------

2. General composition of chapter 2.

In the beginning this chapter has 3 bullets, then it has subchapters 2.1,
2.2 and 2.3 that correspond to these bullets. But then it has additional
subchapters:

2.4 Callout Servers
2.5 Policy Enforcement
2.6 Tracing Facility

To preserve composition integrity I'd suggest to add 4th bullet for
Callout Servers and move 2.6 (Tracing facility) to chapter 3 as 3.6. This
way we have chapter 2 describing all OPES objects and chapter 3 covering all
security related questions.
--------------

On 2.5 (Policy Enforcement)

>dispatcher constitutes an enhanced Policy Enforcement Point (PEP),

Use of PEP abbreviation may be a little confusing: this document
references RFC 3238, which uses this abbreviation in a different
sense - Performance-Enhancing Proxies, originating in RFC 3135
(see RFC 3238, p.4).

As I understand PEP abbreviation here is used in the sense of COPS,
but the notion of "policy" in COPS is somewhat different. To add
more confusion in the name of RFC3135 "IAB Architectural and Policy
Considerations for Open Pluggable Edge Services" the word "policy"
has yet another meaning.

I'd suggest to abandon this terminology (Policy Enforcement
Point - PEP) in this document. It is not well defined here and looks very
ambiguous.

Let's just call data dispatchers data dispatchers. They are introduced
in 2.1, so  all 2.5 can be moved there, either as "2.1.1 Data Dispatcher" or
without subheader.

Oskar