At 23:24 13/07/04, Markus Hofmann wrote:
jfcm wrote:
So far, we've specified a OCP/HTTP profile that supports services
operating on HTTP messages.
Now we specify a OCP/SMTP profile that supports services operating on
SMTP messages.
This is why the same phrasing should be used.
Here's what we've in currently proposed charter"
So far, the WG has specified an OCP profile for HTTP, which supports
OPES services that operate on HTTP messages.
and
[...] the WG will specify one or more OCP profiles that will support
applications operating on SMTP messages.
I think this is exactly what I describe above and you agreed on, so we're
in agreement here.
I am sorry. This is not.
"The WG will specify one or more OCP profiles for SMPT to support OPES
services that operate on SMPT messages" would be same phrasing.
I expect that you will say it is not what you want. This is precisely what
I want you to dig into. Because SMTP is structurally different and I do not
think that OPES can apply to the whole SMTP system.
The answer does not match the question. In one to one direct access http,
I know who are the parties. I one to many possibly rerouted mailing I do
not know what you mean by parties. Has to be clarified otherwise the
whole thing will be opposed on security grounds.
Hm, you bring up a good point. For example, your asking who are the
endpoints when I send an email to a mailing list, right? I've one source
endpoint, but multiple destination endpoints. So it's not sufficient if
only one of the endpoints authorizes a service.
Now, in case of this example, sending to the mailing list results
basically in multiple transmissions to individuals, in which case we're
back to a scenario with two endpoints.
No. For several reasons.
1. the mailing list the information is sent to is part of the information.
That information cannot be modified without the agreement of the whole
mailing list. If I send a mail to this list saying that you do not
understand this point and I make an OPES to remove you from the list
- I agree so it is OK by your criteria
- you will not respond, so everyone will believe you do not object
- I send another mail agreeing but I make an OPES changing the from
jfc in from markus (I can do it since I am one end). Everyone will
understand that you have agreed not understanding this point
... and you will know nothing of this.
2. Again I am A, you are B and someone is C. An OPES changes B in C. C will
be the receiving end. He has agreed to the change. Is that enough? May be
if B gave authority to C, maybe not if B has not.
Any thoughts from anyone?
That is meant to say "...HTTP or SMTP messages". Will change that.
I am not sure about what you mean in this as SMTP Messages when you refer
to HTTP Messages. You will find that SMTP will probably used in OPES
related application as application signal and message transport. Even if
you do not want to take theses mechanisms in consideration, what IMHO
removes a lot of interest to effort when you consider real life
applications - for example spam fighting, I suggest a clearer wording to
avoid this confusion.
Not sure whether I understood the above, but the wording now is "Define a
rules language to control the selection and invocation of HTTP-based or
SMTP-based OPES services." which I would assumeto be adequatly clear.
OK. I suggest that we are extermely carefull at using the word "message"
without explaining it, in a signal-message-mail-datagram passing environment.
jfc