Re: P work in new charter

Geetha Manjunath wrote:

> * Rule Specification : The filtering services themselves would be provided by
> vendors (say, virus scanners) while the configuring conditions (rules) will
> be  described/specified using the 'P' rule language.

Agreed.

> * Writing simple filters/actions: While modifying a message to be able to
> call several commoditized filters may be one of the examples (Alex), I would
> see the need for writing actions more when the actions themselves are very
> simple - may be to just put some additional authentication controls onto
> services, where the OPES processor would just return a 40x response.

These functions are services themselves and should be invoked by the 
rules, rather then trying to "programm" them in the rules.

If a function like "adding of authentication controls" is needed, a 
little service doing this can be written, and a rule can be specified 
to invoke this service.

> * Writing modules in 'P':  Since a set of rules themselves may need to be
> reused many a times, we may want to create customized reusable modules in 'P'

Thats sounds worthwhile to consider (but already goes beyond the 
charter discussion perse, I would assume).

> (d) defining mechanisms by which a user can communicate rulesets to the OPES
> processor.

Such mechanism is needed (one might default to existing ones), but out 
of scope of the WG.

-Markus