On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Joel, >> >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 02:22:01PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> > The architecture does not have a proxy. It only has Clients, who >> > may be acting on behalf of applications. Those applications are not >> > consider, by the I2RS system, to be I2RS Clients. >> > >> > Secondary identity is not a full proxy mode. secondary identities >> > are not authenticated. They do not have priorities. They are >> > included in the architecture to ease attribution. >> >> It is understood that secondary-identity is only a traceability detail. >> >> > So no, if A and B are applications, working through a common I2RS >> > client, then their operations are handled by the client. The >> > requirements only call for the client priority to be assigned to >> > those operations. >> >> Given the above, I think it is fair to say that proxies are completely out >> of scope. While this simplifies things, I'm not sure it's the best thing >> long-term. >> >> > The entire northbound API from the client is out of scope. > The secondary identity is just decoration in the standard. > > In reality, a broker might be the only client, so its priority > is worthless for resolving conflicts. The applications using > the broker are the ones needing priority to resolve conflicts. > > I can imagine "data-specific controllers" meaning if an app > for vendor X want to write a particular set of data structures, > it goes through the client designed to provide a simplified > (proprietary) API for this purpose. > > Since this is all out of scope I suppose it doesn't matter, > but some types of brokers won't work very well. > > Actually, if there is only 1 client then priority is irrelevant and the broker will resolve all collisions. If a broker is not the only client then its priority is set to the best needed by all the apps using the broker. Probably best to just wait and see if a standard broker is ever needed. I suspect proprietary systems will just add extra parameters and get around the standard, no matter what WG decision is getting in the way. Andy > > > > > As a nice-to-have, allowing clients to specify different priorities >> > for different operations is acceptable. But it is not necessary. >> >> As a nice-to-have, I don't believe the architecture clearly explains such >> an >> ability to alter priority. Please work with Alia to update the >> architecture >> document to clarify this if you believe this property is important. >> >> -- Jeff >> >> > > Andy > > >> _______________________________________________ >> i2rs mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >> > >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
