Re: An opes usage question.

On the contrary, I feel the accounting model should be slightly
different in the OPES case:
(a) We should charge the consumer for bytes output from the content
server (we can debate on whether the #bytes is pre-adaptation or not)
PLUS
(b)A pay-per-use model for specific adaptation services used - this
information can be provided  to the billing server by the adaptation
server.

Comments?

regards
Geetha


"The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" wrote:
> 
> If the billing is based on actual bytes delivered to the consumer,
> there must be a business relationship between the billing stage
> servers and adaptation servers.  The relationship will usually allow
> the adaptation servers to cache the content and report to the billing
> servers about the number of bytes delivered.  However, the reporting
> is a reverse flow in the client-server model, and that is why it seems
> problematical.  By convention, the adaptation server might make a
> request back to the provider with the number of bytes encoded in the
> request, or it might, on occasion, upload a report.  The rules
> governing this behavior would most naturally be encoded on the
> adaptation server, not on the OPES callout server.  So, this seems to
> me to be an issue for the rules language.
> 
> An alternative model would have this byte reporting functionality
> handled on the callout server, and it would directly contact
> the provider's billing service with reports.
> 
> Hilarie