Re: OPES Boiler Plate

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:

> Bellow a strawman proposal for such boiler plate. If you have
> suggestions on how to improve it, please PROVIDE SPECIFIC TEXT
> rather then generic comments.

Markus,

	I have one generic comment that I will provide, despite your
request, in order to motivate my specific suggestions below. The
proposed text is too long and too detailed. Boiler plate purpose
should be to position the reader in the right place within the OPES
document hierarchy, not to explain subtle features and shortcomings of
every document. Let's try to make it shorter.

	My SPECIFIC TEXT is inlined below.

> Overview of OPES documents

OPES document map

> The OPES Working Group has produced a series of documents that
> together provide a motivation and a description of the OPES
> architecture and the protocols being used therein.

This document belongs to a large set of OPES specifications produced
by the IETF OPES Working Group. Familiarity with the overall OPES
approach and typical scenarios is often essential when trying to
comprehend isolated OPES documents. This section provides an index of
OPES documents to assist the reader with finding "missing"
information.

> The document on "OPES Use Cases and Deployment Scenarios"
> [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-scenarios] describes a set of services and
> applications that are considered in scope for OPES and have been
> used as a motivation and guidance in designing the OPES
> architecture.

> The list of services and applications presented in this document is
> not exhaustive, additional services and applications beyond the ones
> presented in the document are expected to be deployed based on the
> OPES architecture.

[Delete everything starting from "The list of services" ]

> The OPES architecture itself is described in "An Architecture for
> Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES)"
> [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-architecture].  The document also attempts to
> layout the core terminology used across the various OPES documents.

The OPES architecture and common terminology are described in "An
Architecture for Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES)"
[I-D.draft-ietf-opes-architecture].

> The architecture document is augmented by the document on "Policy,
> Authorization and Enforcement Requirements of OPES"
> [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-authorization], which should not be seen as a
> specification of concrete authorization and enforcement methods, but
> rather outlines requirements and assumptions on the policy framework
> underlying OPES.

"Policy, Authorization and Enforcement Requirements of OPES"
[I-D.draft-ietf-opes-authorization] outlines requirements and
assumptions on the policy framework, without specifying concrete
authorization and enforcement methods.

> The security threats and risks associated with OPES are investigated
> in "Security Threats and Risks for OPES"
> [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-threats]. The purpose of this document is to
> identify and discuss possible threats that arise from the nature of
> OPES, but it does not specify or recommend specific solutions.

"Security Threats and Risks for OPES"  [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-threats]
provides OPES risk analysis, without recommending specific solutions.

> When the OPES WG was chartered, the IETF Internet Architecture Board
> (IAB) expressed nine architecture-level considerations for the Open
> Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) framework to be addressed by the WG.
> Rather then spreading the explanations for these consideration
> across the various OPES documents, the WG decided to produce a
> single document that collectively addresses all nine of the IAB
> considerations in one place. The document is named "OPES Treatment
> of IAB Considerations" [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-iab].

"OPES Treatment of IAB Considerations" [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-iab]
addresses all architecture-level considerations expressed by the IETF
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) when the OPES WG was chartered.

> At the core of the OPES architecture are the OPES processor and the
> callout server, two network elements that communicate with each
> other via an OPES Callout Protocol. The requirements for such
> protocol are discussed in "Requirements for OPES Callout Protocols"
> [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-protocol-reqs].

[Add "(OCP)" after "OPES Callout Protocol"]

[Is the requirements document important at this point in time?  Isn't
it more like an internal, temporary document to guide protocol
development process? Does the requirements document contain anything
that will help the reader of other documents? Can we drop the above
paragraph or at least leave it in OCP Core only?]

> The document on "OPES Callout Protocol Core"
> [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-ocp-core-03] finally specifies an application
> agnostic protocol core to be used for the communication between OPES
> processor and callout server, with generic tracing and bypass
> mechanisms defined in "OPES entities and end points communication"
> [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-05]. The core document itself does not
> provide a complete protocol specification, but rather defines a
> common protocol framework that has to be complemented by application
> specific profiles.

"OPES Callout Protocol Core" [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-ocp-core-03]
specifies a protocol core to be used for the communication between
OPES processor and callout server.

"OPES entities and end points communications"
[I-D.draft-ietf-opes-end-comm-05] specifies generic tracing and bypass
mechanisms for OPES.

> One of such profiles is specified in "HTTP adaptation with OPES"
> [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-http]. It specifies how application-agnostic
> mechanisms such as OPES tracing, OPES bypass, and OPES protocol core
> are to be used and augmented in order to support adaptation of HTTP
> messages. Additional profiles beyond HTTP are expected to be worked
> on in the future.

The OCP Core and Communications documents are independent from the
application protocol being adapted by OPES entities. Their generic
mechanisms have to be complemented by application-specific profiles.
"HTTP adaptation with OPES" is such an application profile for HTTP.
It specifies how application-agnostic OPES mechanisms are to be used
and augmented in order to support adaptation of HTTP messages.

> Finally, the document on "P: Message Processing Language"
> [I-D.draft-ietf-opes-rules-p-02] defines a simple language for
> specifying message processing instructions at application proxies.
> It can be used to instruct OPES intermediaries how to manipulate
> application messages. For example, it can be used to tell an OPES
> processor which HTTP messages have to be forwarded to a callout
> server (via the OPES callout protocol) for performing a certain OPES
> service.

Finally, "P: Message Processing Language"
[I-D.draft-ietf-opes-rules-p-02] defines a language for specifying
what OPES adaptations (e.g, translation) must be applied to what
application messages (e.g., e-mail from [email protected]). P language
is meant for configuring application proxies (OPES processors).


HTH,

Alex.