On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:
I would assume that the phrasing
Define a rules language to control the selection and
execution of OPES services.
does not preculde us from specifying a "rules languahe core" and
HTTP/SMTP specific profiles.
It does not. The problem is with the specific deliverables that seem
to mention just one language specification/document rather that a core
language plus modules approach:
DATE Initial document on OPES rules language
DATE Submit document on OPES rules language to
IESG for Proposed Standard
Should we rephrase so that multiple documents are allowed?
In order to ensure that we come up with a solution that at least
supports HTTP and SMTP, let's word it as
Define a rules language to control the selection and
execution of HTTP/SMTP-based OPES services.
How does that sound?
Sounds like it excludes other protocols from being considered when
designing the core language. How about:
Define a rules language to control OPES processor selection
and execution of OPES services, including HTTP and SMTP
adaptation services.
Thanks,
Alex.