[re] OHP header
From: Sigi REICH (sr_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Mon 09 Jun 1997 - 15:57:18 CDT
let me add some things in order to explain our decisions / questions:
- when working on OHP we assumed the basic components linkservice (LS),
session manager(SessionMgr), application (app), and document management
_(fwd link)_system (DM; I'll send a .gif picture to you in a separate mail; Note, we do
not claim that this is a reference architecture. It simply helped us during
our discussion on OHP). In order to have these basic components talking to
each other there should rather be a series of OHPs than one single
protocol: especially a DMP (Document Management Protocol) would often be
_(fwd link)_needed. (I think I do not really understand your point of 'ignoring' the SM
on 'a logical addressing level').
>In any event, suppose you had the following scenario. An app
>communicates to a link service through a session manager. Ignoring
>for a moment the collaboration problems with this (don't hit me,
>Jörg!), can the session manager be abstracted out of this discussion?
>It seems to me that the link service can logically address (in the
>header) it's messages to the app but physically route them to the
- when drawing the picture we realised that for some components protocol
information is opaque for others not; e.g., the location specifications
might be opaque for the linkservice but not for the application. That's why
I added the '??' to the line from SessionMgr to app. The question marks
should 'question' whether this part is still OHP or whether it is a
different level, or ...
- concerning collaboration we were thinking of adding a userID to each
message. Q: should this be part of the session header?
> 1) Do we want to handle collaboration in version 1?
> 2) If so, what to we need to add to the header?
Sigi REICH, Visiting Research Fellow
Multimedia Research Group
Department of Electronics and Computer Science
The University of Southampton
Southampton S017 1BJ, U.K.
Tel: +44-1703 59 5415
Fax: +44-1703 59 2865
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Tue 13 Aug 2002 - 07:20:42 CDT