[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Protocol next steps

2003-04-02 12:32:20

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.


-----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 

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.


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