On 19 Dec 2000 at 10:52 -0700, Hilarie Orman apparently wrote:
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?
I'm not against ICAP per se.
* Is the charter, and thus our requirements, going to be narrowed to
just the sorts of problems that ICAP is good for? As you saw from my
previous comments I think the charter as it stands now sort of
oscillates between wide and narrow scope. If we want to focus on
ICAP-style problems then ICAP is the protocol of choice by
definition. Otherwise we should make the framework & requirements
explicit and evaluate protocols.
* Also, in 6 months or less we're going to need to see how OPES
requirements overlap with Midcom (and maybe WEBI?) requirements. What
if there is enough overlap to make some level of alignment desirable,
and the others are using COPS or some other highly extensible general
transaction protocol?
See you ... Scott