Sorry for the misinterpretation, but the intend was not to establish/force
an Intel API document, instead it was to put side by side relevant work in
the area as a convenience to mailing list members. We'll remove the logo
from the draft.
This doc has not been publicly debated on the OPES mailing list as APIs work
is outside the scope of the proposed IETF OPES charter. Nevertheless we'll
make an effort to publish it in HTML/PDF format.
Thanks
Christian
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Cooper [mailto:ian(_at_)the-coopers(_dot_)org]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:36 AM
To: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Cc: andrew(_dot_)walker(_at_)thundercrack(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: I hate to moan, but
I'd echo Andrew's concerns, while also noting that the API
section of the
web site seems to have attempted to "distance" itself from
the IETF side of
the work. (That said, the fact that the host part of the URL for the
document contains the letters "ietf" is a little worrying...)
I'm also concerned that I'm seeing non-ASCII/PS documents...
Is there any chance to convert the documents to some
multi-platform format?
HTML/PDF/ASCII (yeah, OK, I can fight and try to view PS,
heh)? This is
definitely an issue in the security issues section where I
see a PowerPoint
presentation (something I can't view on my current machine).
--On Monday, November 12, 2001 18:26 +0000 Andrew Walker
<andrew(_dot_)walker(_at_)thundercrack(_dot_)com> wrote:
I've noticed that the the ietf-opes website is now hosting
API documents,
this is great. Thanks for that.
http://www.ietf-opes.org/Proposed%20APIsMain.htm
I have noticed however that the way that the API documents
are announced
on the website is a little inconsistent with the other
documents. An
Intel document (as of yet unanounced on this public list)
seems to be
being presented as a bone-fide OPES API with a document I
authored being
presented as as thundercracks alternate proposal. All other
documents on
the website are labeled in synopsis as
title/filename/abstract without
any indication of company ownership.
Whilst I do appreciate that there are two alternate proposals and
actively want to produce a consensual document, I do object to the
presentation of a document privately authored by the
co-chair's company
taking precedence over a publicly debated document. A
posting in this
way could be seen as devisive. If this has been a simple
oversight by the
webmaster, I apologise in advance.
--
Regards,
Andrew Walker
Thundercrack Ltd.
17 Rathbone Street
London, W1T 1ND
UK
Phone: +44 020 7631 1000
EMail: andrew(_dot_)walker(_at_)thundercrack(_dot_)com
URI: http://www.thundercrack.com