Alex Rousskov wrote:
It would help authors to know the set of final OPES documents so
that appropriate cross-references can be made before all documents
are written. The set can change at any time, of course.
Yup. In general, however, let me second Hilarie''s advise (in a later
email) that we should try to avoid a *large* number of related drafts.
This does *not* preclude having separate, focused drafts as you
propose, but if there are multiple choices on how to split them, a
general guideline would be to keep the number of separate documents
low (as feasible).
I would like to suggest the following set. It is based on a principle
that it is better to have one application-specific document per
application. An alternative is to have one application-specific
document per application, per application-independent draft.
Following above guideline, I would be tempted to lean towards the
former approach, namely having one application-specific document per
application.
The set is incomplete, I only mention some documents we care about at
this time:
Application-independent documents:
OPES Architecture
draft-ietf-opes-architecture
OPES Callout Protocol Core
draft-ietf-opes-ocp
OPES Tracing
draft-ietf-opes-trace
OPES Bypass
draft-ietf-opes-bypass
As suggested later, I like the idea of combining the later two, since
both are concerned about conveying information towards the end-user(s).
Application-specific documents:
OPES adaptation of HTTP
draft-ietf-opes-http
OPES adaptation of SMTP
draft-ietf-opes-smtp
OPES adaptation of FooBarP
draft-ietf-opes-foobarp
Yes, but only the first one (on HTTP) would be within the current
charter of the WG.
-Markus