All:
As you all know, the most recent OPES workshop devoted a good chunk of its
time on issues dedicated to iCAP and there has been a lot of discussion that
has examined and provided feedback on iCAP, resulting in changes for iCAP
draft (captured by Alberto Cerpa).
ECMA is the European Computer Manufacturers' Association (www.ecma.ch)
I participated in the ECMA-iCAP meeting organized by ECMA Technical
Committee 32 (TC32) from June 18th- 20th. I represented Intel, IBM and
Lucent at this meeting, specifically the interest of these three companies
on iCAP as it relates to our involvement in OPES and iCAP related
activities. The key theme of my presentation was to alert ECMA to the
possibility of divergent standards and duplication of standardization
related efforts, as iCAP goes through standards activities in both IETF and
ECMA. Please find the attached minutes published by ECMA.
My understanding of the IETF process is not clear on what happens after a
protocol draft (like iCAP) has been published for consideration with an IETF
forum, but gets submitted to another organization like ECMA - is it possible
for a "independent" forum like iCAP Forum to own the protocol that has
already been submitted at IETF?
What would be the implications if ECMA or ISO (to which ECMA represents a
fast-track standardization opportunity ) publishes the existing iCAP with
modifications submitted in the short-term as a standard, but later the
"working team" (lack of official WG status for OPES as of 6/27/01) in IETF
undertakes a version with modifications beyond those included in the
ECMA/ISO version?
***** Minutes from the ECMA-iCAP meeting, published by ECMA, below *********
Minutes of the meeting of the iCAP group
held in Vienna on 18th-20th June 2001
Acting Chairman: Mr. L. Duggs (Network Appliance)
Secretary: Mr. J. van den Beld (SG ECMA)
Attending: Mr. F. Berzau (Webwasher/Siemens), Mr. P. Eastham (Network
Appliance), Mr. J. Elwell (Siemens), Mr. W. Glinka (Network Appliance), Mr.
R. Menon (Intel), Mr. N. Pfleger (Alcatel), Mr. M. Stecher
(Webwasher/Siemens), Mr. H. Theis (Tenovis)
1 Welcome, opening and roll call
Mr. van den Beld opened the meeting with a special welcome to all
attending an ECMA meeting for the first time.
A roll call was held.
2 Adoption of the agenda (TC32/2001/54)
The agenda was adopted.
3 Appointment of Acting Chairman
Mr. Duggs was appointed as Acting Chairman.
4 Technical presentations
4.1 Presentation on iCAP
Mr. Duggs, who is also President of the 120-company iCAP
Forum, gave a presentation on the iCAP concept and technology.
The iCAP Forum has developed several versions of a
specification. Several members are implementing the protocol. The results of
these implementation efforts require a rather urgent agreement because
otherwise diverging incompatible implementations might be the result.
Therefore, the time window for technical standardization is there. The Forum
has also identified compelling reasons for an international formal standard,
i.e. an ISO Standard.
Some of the information had also been presented by Mr. Duggs
to TC32 at their Seville meeting : see TC32/2001/28 (TG18/2001/2). The new
presentation is given in TG18/2001/3.
4.2 Presentation of IETF/OPES
Mr. Menon gave this presentation : see TG18/2001/4. Open
Plug-able Edge Services (OPES) is developing an overall architecture and
framework for edge services (i.e. services in intermediary networks). iCAP
is considered as providing a call-out service that fits in the OPES
architecture. Other candidate protocols might be considered as well.
OPES is not yet a formal IETF working group but this is
under consideration. In their last meeting in June 2001 many discussions on
iCAP took place, a draft specification was distributed, and several items
were identified that require urgent solution to prevent incompatible
implementations. There were about 40 persons from several companies. Next
meeting will take place in London in the week of 6th August 2001.
4.3 Discussion
The group held a rather long discussion with the goals to :
* obtain one standard.
* harmonize different perceptions of two groups of industries by
encouraging these groups to bring all their views to one technology
development centre.
* create a clear responsibility for the three organizations involved:
iCAP Forum, IETF/OPES and ECMA.
* avoid "hijacking" by one (group of) implementor(s) by encouraging
participation by all parties concerned.
* protect the fast-growing customer base by creating successive
versions of the standard that guide the technology in the future.
* set up a structure that best guarantees a sustainable growth of the
technology.
* recognize the imminence of implementations and the risk of
divergencies by giving high priority to the solution of open technical
issues.
The meeting decided that the following infrastructure and
responsibilities are the best way to achieve the goals described above:
* The iCAP Forum retains the further technical development
responsibility for the protocol by acting as the technology development
centre. As far as the Forum has somewhat neglected this responsibility in
the past months some direct actions will be taken, like setting up a
reflector for technical discussions by all parties concerned, and bringing
the Forum web site fully up to date. In addition to the current
specification, it is recommended to create an "issues" list of items that
preferably should appear in the current version of the standard that is
under development, and a "future wishes" list of items for future versions
of the standard. It is expected that these lists will be "fed" by feedback
from the users. Both the current version of the standard under development
and the two lists will be in the public domain. The iCAP Forum decides what
goes into the standard, and when (i.e. which version).
* Assuming that IETF/OPES will become a working group and iCAP a work
item, OPES will have the responsibility to verify and control that iCAP fits
in the OPES architecture and framework.
* ECMA will have the responsibility to bring the standard in ISO
format and to apply the most appropriate procedures to arrive at an ISO
Standard as soon as possible.
5 Technical issues
5.1 Open subjects
Because there is no single place for companies to "talk
together" and because implementations are becoming imminent, it seems that
the recent OPES meeting has been seized by a large number of technicians to
discuss several open subjects which require a solution before completion of
new implementations. The first implementation has been the NetApp
implementation.
The iCAP group in ECMA received and discussed these subjects
as well, and arrived at a substantial level of consensus. The outcome of
this will be put in the 1st draft of the ECMA Standard : see item 6 of these
minutes.
5.2 Technical presentation
Mr. Eastham gave an in-depth presentation of iCAP by means
of a walk-thru through the NetApp implementation. The result was a lively
interaction with the participants of the iCAP group.
Some of the information presented by Mr. Eastham is given in
TG18/2001/5.
5.3 Review of preliminary draft (TC32/2001/30)
This preliminary draft is also put in the TG18 ftp folder as
TG18/2001/7.
The draft was shortly reviewed by the group. Items requiring
attention are:
* References : a distinction must be made between normative and
informative references.
* Conformance : are the options needed in the standard? If so, then
they have to be fully specified. Several TC32 standards contain, e.g. in an
annex, a PICS proforma. This might be useful for the iCAP standard as well.
* Language used. The text must be made clearly normative. Examples,
notes, figures are only for informative purposes.
* Abbreviations, acronyms, notation aspects, etc. are usually
presented in a separate clause.
* Terms and definitions have to be used in a consistent way.
* Title of the standard, e.g. Internet Content Adaptation Protocol
(ICAP). It was noted that the acronym ICAP has been trademarked by NetApp.
Formal permission by NetApp is required for the free use of the acronym.
* Versioning : are versions/editions planned with the intention of
backward compatibility, or is this no issue? Version 1 of the standard could
have the title "Internet Content Adaptation Protocol (ICAP) - Phase I".
6 Plan and planning of the work
6.1 Outside ECMA
As already outlined under item 4.3 of these minutes, a very
pro-active role is expected from the iCAP Forum on short term. All
parties/companies are strongly encouraged to participate in the revamped
iCAP Forum activities which should bring the Forum back into the driver's
seat for the further development and completion of the first version of the
standard.
It is beyond the task of the ECMA group to determine how the
Forum should reclaim its role. OPES will have to be informed as quickly as
possible.
6.2 Inside ECMA
The iCAP group decided to propose to ECMA TC32 to set up a
new Task Group for iCAP : TG18. The following terms of reference were agreed
upon:
Title : Internet Content Adaptation
Scope : To develop standards and technical reports for
Internet content adaptation.
Programme of work :
1. To develop in co-operation with the iCAP Forum standards for the
Internet Content Adaptation Protocol (ICAP).
2. To liaise with IETF, W3C, ISO/IEC JTC 1 and other bodies as
appropriate to achieve a unique worldwide set of standards in this area.
Officers : Convenor : Mr. L. Duggs (Network Appliance),
Vice-Convenor : Mr. M. Stecher (Webwasher).
Editor : Mr. W. Glinka (Network Appliance).
Initial sponsors : Alcatel, Network Appliance,
Webwasher/Siemens.
Note from Secretary : TC32 approved this proposal, presented
by Mr. Glinka (TG18/2001/8), unanimously in its meeting on 22nd June 2001 <
end of note >.
6.3 Planning / Next meeting
The first draft will be distributed for comments at the end
of July 2001.
Contributions are invited : TG18/2001/7 can be used as a
basis.
On 17th August 2001 (17:00 CET) a teleconference will be
held on comments and contributions received.
Following this, and based on the outcome of the
teleconference, a 2nd draft will be prepared, in time for review and comment
by the 1st TG18 meeting. At this meeting the final draft will be prepared
for approval by TC32 and submission to the GA for vote in December 2001.
Meeting dates:
* Estes Park / USA, 1st TG18 meeting, 18th September 2001 : see venue
TG18/2001/6.
* Estes Park / USA, TC32 meeting, 20-21 September 2001.
* Redmond, 82nd GA meeting, 13th December 2001.
7 Any other business
None.
****** end of ECMA minutes ********