ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: OPES claim on iCAP

2001-06-29 05:50:39

I'm confused by all of this discussion about ownership and joint development
work.  As I understand the situation, the iCAP Forum and ECMA have found a
marriage.  We stood up and made our objections known and, although I
disagree with their decision, so be it.  The IETF owns the copyright and
change control on any and all IETF documents.  Unless the happy couple
agrees to take anything we do (and they say they don't), then the discussion
is over.

So, if you want to work on iCAP, go to the iCAP Forum and/or ECMA.  Simple,
yes?  If you want to work on the OPES framework, callout protocol, security
& policy models, this is the place.  This seems the only logical conclusion.
If the OPES callout protocol ends up looking similar to iCAP, so be it.
Another alternative is for OPES to accept whatever the Forum and ECMA come
up with and reference it.  Bottom line, it's silly to have three groups
working on 1 protocol when we've all got more than enough to do already.
What am I missing here?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael W. Condry" <condry(_at_)intel(_dot_)com>
To: "Ian Cooper" <icooper(_at_)equinix(_dot_)com>; 
<ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Cc: "van den Beld Jan" <jan(_at_)ecma(_dot_)ch>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: OPES claim on iCAP



The question is one of process for consensus documents. NOT does OPES or
any other
working group OWN iCAP.

If iCAP is submitted to the IETF (OPES, WEBI, anywhere) then is a
consensus
process to agree to its contents, agree? Of course an individual I-D has
no
consensus, that is not the discussion.

If an IETF finds issues to be resolved (AD, WG, whatever) then these must
be resolved.  Resolution is not the authors saying "we submitted it
elsewhere
and they accepted it"  agree?

If the authors of the document, members of iCAP-form or not, agree to
make all changes requested in a timely manner as IETF participants
then there I do not see an issue. But this is the concern. Do you
remember the Pittsburgh BOF? That certainly did not
imply this kind of cooperation. agree?

So the issue is NOT if the authors of a document also submit it to
another organization like ECMA, that can be ok! The issue is
for the IETF members to work on a document and not have
the IETF process followed. Does everyone agree?


At 11:24 AM 6/28/2001 -0700, Ian Cooper wrote:

I' confused.  In trying to respond to another message I finding myself
asking why OPES seems to need total control of iCAP.

If it's published as an Informational RFC (with the current nits fixed)
what problem does that actually present?

Is it the job of a proposed working group to worry about the interaction
of standards bodies on a protocol that they themselves say they may
choose
not to use?  (And that if they do, may end up being something so
different
that it's not the iCAP that's been examined by those other standards
bodies.)

Michael W. Condry
Director,  Network Edge Technology





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>