Scott, thanks for the comments. I'd like to concentrate on
ICAP. I've heard more than one person mention that it is not
an IETF protocol, and that concerns me. I've worked on it
with the understanding that each version was to be submitted
to the IETF and that ICAP was actively seeking an IETF WG
to give it a home. Without that home, it hasn't been able
to receive the IETF review that you mention, despite being
visible as a draft to the WREC community for some time.
Given the maturity of the draft and implementations, its
match with the proposed OPES architecture, and the
demands of our IETF overseers for clear definition of
deliverables at the charter stage, it seems reasonable
to name ICAP, as in ICAP-the-
individual-draft-that-wants-to-go-through-
IETF-WG-review-and-refinement,
not ICAP-the-strange protocol-from-another-planet.
Would this background understanding allay the
objections to naming ICAP in the charter?
Hilarie