1 / 3

P: Message Processing Language (draft-ietf-opes-rules-02)

P: Message Processing Language (draft-ietf-opes-rules-02). Alex Rousskov* (rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Andre Beck* (abeck@lucent.com) *Presented by Markus Hofmann. Document Status.

jada
Download Presentation

P: Message Processing Language (draft-ietf-opes-rules-02)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. P: Message Processing Language(draft-ietf-opes-rules-02) Alex Rousskov* (rousskov@measurement-factory.com) Andre Beck* (abeck@lucent.com) *Presented by Markus Hofmann

  2. Document Status • September: WG decision to drop work on the Intermediary Rules Markup Language (IRML) in favor of moving forward with “P”. • Mainly a style preference. • Characteristics of “P”: • Centered around the concept of an “object”, similar to objects of object-oriented languages. • General approach is application protocol agnostic. • Supports loadable modules for adding support of (existing and new) application protocols. • Good progress made, but several important open issues and still some work to be done. • Will we have a final document candidate for WGLC by end of November?

  3. Open Issues • What (message) information can the P interpreter access, i.e. what information can be part of a rules condition? For example: • Complete message (including message body), • Meta-information only (e.g. HTTP headers only), • Where to draw the line? Does the WG have to specify this? • Should the WG document an HTTP module for P? • If yes, should specification of such module be part of the HTTP adaptation draft, of the P draft, or a separate document? • Should the WG define interfaces between P interpreters and module suppliers and/or callout services? • How do services return results? Should all issues be addressed under the current charteror under a possible re-charter?

More Related