I think the point has been mis-understood.
I do not disagree that iCAP has ever been a working group item
and OPES has only been BOFs and proposed working group so
so any discussion of iCAP under OPES is not as with a working
group. Yes, iCAP has been published as an Internet-Draft
and its content has been discussed by the group of people
attending the meetings under the 'OPES' name.
There is an "working together" activity expected by participants of
the IETF that has not been happening. I do not recall the speaker
at Pittsburgh, sorry for using the name "Mr iCAP". That is also not
1. iCAP was discussed at the IETF. This is not usually done for
something that has an "independent track" such as
the iCAP-Forum unless it intends to cooperate with the IETF.
2. Part of this discussion was included in the proposed working
Some participants of OPES have been interested in iCAP and
much meeting time (of folks interested in the PROPOSED
has been spent, minuted, and other time spent.
3. iCAP was explicitly included as a evaluation specification in the
proposed OPES charter.
4. At the same time iCAP was submitted to ECMA not with any
of the IETF and not after the IETF had rejected iCAP.
This is not the kind of good faith activity we expect in the IETF.
At 05:58 PM 7/10/2001 +0200, John Martin wrote:
would be interested to them. Please include "ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org"
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology