> > I have several concerns about this charter.
>
> > I cannot tell whether those concerns are merely due to ambiguities in
> > the charter. I hope this is the case, and that the proponents of
> > the group will be willing to clarify the charter to narrow the apparent
> > scope of this proposed group.
>
> Keith, I think you are being unduly paranoid here. You are reading using the
> "that which isn't explicitly disallowed is not only permitted, but
condoned".
> This sort of analysis is neither valid, useful, or necessary.
Perhaps not. But I've seen people in working groups make the same assumptions
about charter language, and I think it's a good idea to avoid such
misunderstanding.
And while I'd very much like to believe that nobody actually is proposing to
legitimize some of the practices I mentioned in my earlier message, there
is plently of evidence to the contrary. And some of those folks are likely to
be attracted to a group with this charter.
So the question in my mind is whether this particular group is proposing to
legitimize such practices. If not, then please just accept my message as
a request for clarification of the charter, since (if nothing else) having
such an open-ended charter seems likely to attract folks who really do want
license to break layering, and those people will distract the group from
its purpose. (and they do exist, in spades)
> > > The Open Plugable Edge Service (OPES) WG primary task is to define a
> > > protocol to be used to extend participating transit intermediaries to
> > > incorporate services executed on application data transported by HTTP.
>
> > What are "participating transit intermediaries"?
>
> Application area working group -> application layer intermediaries.
We do cross-area activities quite frequently. Obviously the group's scope
would include application layer intermediaries, but the fact that it's in the
apps area doesn't inherently mean that it wouldn't look at other kinds of
intermediaries.
Put it this way - if we were going to charter a group that was allowed to
define protocols for intermediaries on multiple layers, would it axiomatically
be in some area other than apps? It's not clear to me that it would, and
daresay I understand the structure of this organization as well as anyone else.
Keith