Alex Rousskov wrote:
The reason for correction is not the word "adaptation" but that the
original wording limits us to operating on SMTP messages rather than
SMTP messages, commands, states, etc. Martin's examples illustrate why
operating on MIME messages alone is not sufficient.
"Adaptation" alone is not sufficient either. Your main concern seems
to be the term "SMTP messages", since it leaves out SMTP commands etc.
So I'll put "...support OPES services operating on SMTP..." and remove
the "messages". This should include the commands etc.
Question1: Should "OCP/SMTP profile for X" in deadlines be replaced
with something like "SMTP adaptation for X with OPES"? Since those
drafts will include tracing/bypass profile as well as OCP profile, it
seems wrong to call them just "OCP/SMTP profile". We called HTTP draft
"HTTP adaptation with OPES" for that reason...
Same feeling about using the term "adaptation" as above. I would
consider the current phrasing OK, but if there are strong feelings I'd
be open to re-phrase.
It's not the word adaptation that I am after. It is including tracing
and bypass. The current wording inlcudes only OCP, and not OPES
So let's not use the term 'adaptation' then. I'll put in "Initial
document on OCP/SMTP profile for MTAs, including mechanisms for
tracing and bypass" for now.