Subject: RE: [end points comm] OPES System

From: "Abbie Barbir" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:14:12 -0400

Markisn

That is the main problem. We need a formal definition, since we refere to it
a lot in the draft.

Abbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Hofmann [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:52 AM
> To: OPES Group
> Subject: Re: [end points comm] OPES System
> 
> 
> 
> Abbie Barbir wrote:
> 
> > To start off the discussion, can we state that an OPES 
> system is the 
> > collection of entities that perform OPES transformations on a 
> > request/responce within an OPES flow?
> 
> Isn't there somewhere an assumption in the drafts that an "OPES 
> System" describes OPES entities that are operated (or belong) to a 
> single operatore/trustdomain/carrier?
> 
> Thanks,
>    Markus
> 
>

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:34:30 -0400

Abbie,

sure, so here's my understanding so far:

   An "OPES system" describes the collection of all OPES entities (i.e.
   OPES processors and callout servers) that are operated by a single
   provider (or, alternatively: ...within a single trust domain).

If this describes what an "OPES system" was meant to be, I somehow 
don't like the term too much. Maybe the term "OPES domain" would be 
appropriate?

-Markus

---

From: "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:41:58 -0600

I think the concept of an "OPES system" being traceable, without
requiring each OPES processor to be traceable, is unsupportable.
It will not satisfy anyone, and it will lead to endless arguments
about what constitutes compliance.

Hilarie

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:37:08 -0400

> about what constitutes compliance.

If I recall correctly, there were two arguments that lead to this concept:

(1) Carriers are typically hesitant to reveal information about their 
internal network infrastructure, i.e. they don't want to provide 
information (e.g. the IP address) about their internal network elements.

(2) OPES processors might be configured to use non-routable, private 
IP addresses inside a carrier's network. How would they be identified?

A user having problems/concerns would trace and contact the carrier 
who provided an OPES service (without tracing the exact OPES 
processor/callout server). It's up to the carrier to have maintained 
approriate internal detailed traces to find the answer to the 
customer's inquery.

Anyone any thoughts or comments on that issue? This is a very 
important topic and we must get WG consensus on it, so please post 
your views to the mailing list!

-Markus

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:40:19 +0200

At 17:34 11/08/03, Markus Hofmann wrote:
>If this describes what an "OPES system" was meant to be, I somehow don't 
>like the term too much. Maybe the term "OPES domain" would be appropriate?

I do not see why who is providing what would structurally interfere with 
the definition of a system.

An OPES system is a system organized by someone to offer one or a set of 
edge services. If in so doing it uses thousand resources by a single or by 
thousand providers has no structural impact and should have no effect on 
the result.  However who the someone is (user, called service, third party, 
community) may have an influence on the global nature of the system.

An OPES domain maybe of interest to define the parts of an OPES system by a 
given operator, but we have to make clear that such an OPES domain may not 
be a sub-OPES system.

jfc

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:47:00 -0400

jfcm wrote:

> edge services. If in so doing it uses thousand resources by a single or 
> by thousand providers has no structural impact and should have no effect 
> on the result. 

In the context we talked about, it is important that the "OPES system" 
is operated by a single provider, or that all elements of the "OPES 
system" are in the same trust domain. As such, the notion of an "OPES 
domain" comes to mind.

Also, as my advisor used to say, the term "system" is typically used 
when it's not clear what it refers to... :) A "system" can be anything 
and nothing, so if we can come up with a more specific term...

-Markus

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:02:37 -0600 (MDT)

> requiring each OPES processor to be traceable, is unsupportable.

What do you mean by "unsupportable"? From protocol and implementation
point of view it is much easier to trace larger things (a well-known
collection of entities) than every single entity in that collection.

> about what constitutes compliance.

Tracing OPES systems satisfies me :-). While I agree that endless
arguments about compliance are unavoidable, I do not think that
tracing individual system components will stop those arguments. To
start with, "OPES processor" is not currently defined (AFAIK).

Alex.