Martin,
I do indeed want to see iCAP further developed and yes,I agree that an IETF
working group is the appropriate place for this to happen.
Glad to see that we agree on this important issue. So let's all pull
together to help making OPES, which has iCAP on its charter, official.
There's a tremendous interest in the OPES work (just look at the
attendee list of this week's workshop), and your comments also
underline the importance to get OPES official. This would ensure that
iCAP properly integrates into the overall protocol framework.
I don't disagree with you but I suspect that the IESG will want to make
that decision.
Sure, absolutely, I never meant to say something different. And we can
help by quickly reacting to comments/suggestions/questions from the
IESG, by continuing the great work that has already been done in the
group and by staying focused without gettig disrupted.
I do not want to tie iCAP to a group that doesn't exist; on
the other hand, I am pretty happy if iCAP can be further developed within a
group that does exist.
I agree. So make this position loud and clear, let people know that
you'd like to see an official WG like OPES working on these issues,
including iCAP. That's exactly what we all want - and WE means quite a
lot of folks (just look at the enormous interest in OPES).
I don't believe this will happen. The version submitted to ECMA will be the
version that is published by the RFC editor. In my opinion, the former
takes precedence. If ECMA produces an incompatible spec - which I'm sure it
wont - then that is no longer "iCAP 1.0" but something else. We (NetApp)
will work very hard to ensure that doesn't happen.
So, why to submit to two different standards bodies at all? I might
miss the point, but if the goal is to have two identical standards,
why to submit to two different organizations? This just leads to
confusion and is likely to end up in a "standards controversy", which
would not be beneficial to anybody.
-Markus