Re: iCAP, OPES and the IETF

Markus,

I suspect that our differences are small. We both want iCAP standardized 
within the IETF, I just don't want it tied to a group that may never get 
chartered - OPES. I also want to document, via an Informational RFC, the 
facts as they stand now - i.e. iCAP 1.0. [Creeping featurism is a Bad 
Thing, IMHO.] In addition, I believe that the way HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 were 
documented provides a precedent for this.
I also did not detect (from the OPES BoF I did attend) an overwhelming 
desire for iCAP to be homed within OPES. Informal chats with others in this 
area confirmed this.
With regards OPES, my experiences within the IETF tell me that a group that 
is set up with a very ambitious charter to change the way the web works 
will not get chartered. I know because that's what we tried with WREC. In 
the end, the IESG decided that the first stage of WREC should be to have a 
look around, document what was there and produce a taxonomy before making 
the decision that there was something to change. In the end, the IESG was, 
of course, right to do this and we produced some very good output from that 
group - not least, the taxonomy, the known problems and the proposals for 
the successor group WEBI (and indeed many of those within OPES were active 
WREC participants too).
Rgds,
John
At 01:06 PM 05/06/01 -0400, Markus Hofmann wrote:
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------
Network Appliance           Direct / Voicemail: +31 23 567 9615
Kruisweg 799                               Fax: +31 23 567 9699
NL-2132 NG Hoofddorp               Main Office: +31 23 567 9600
---------------------------------------------------------------