hi,
some basic terminology need to be addressed in the ocp doc.
I think we should stick with OPES Processor and Callout Server.
we can mention that they operate like a client/server, but the same
terminology as in the arch doc should be followed.
I am working my way into editing changes to the doc that will follow soon.
abbie
-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Hofmann [mailto:markus(_at_)mhof(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 3:53 PM
To: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Protocol next steps
Alex Rousskov wrote:
Given the above, I think we should publish as an individual
draft to
give everybody enough time for a thorough review while allowing new
revisions to be discussed and published. Those that do not have a
problem with the draft becoming a WG document can treat it as such
immediately.
Submitting an individual draft should not hurt anything, should it?
Skipping that step would be nice, but it is not a big deal. I will
submit an individual draft in ~12 hours unless somebody stops me.
Let's move on...
Yup, please go ahead and publish as individual draft, we
don't want to
delay this. We'll keep moving the draft forward on this mailing list
with input from the entire WG, with the goal to submit the next
version of the draft as WG document. This way, we do *not* delay
making progress, we immediately have a valid reference point, and
folks still have some time to carefully look at the draft.
However, please note: Possible concerns with the content of the
document must be brought up while we're working on the next version.
There will *not* be a separate review time or such like once the next
version is ready for submission (as WG document). Concerns should be
expressed while we're on the path to the next version.
Thanks,
Markus