[ speaking as the beep guy, final message... ]
where i interested in seeing this work complete, i would be
leveraging every existing open standards thing i could get my hands
on. i wouldn't care at all about optimality. i would care about
getting the job done before the IESG wises up and figures out that
this working group isn't going to succeed.
Why are you not suggesting that we simply use ICAP/1.0 as OCP, then?
ICAP/1.0 (RFC 3507) exists, works, and is open.
and if it meets all the requirements (including stuff like security) and
can pass iesg muster, then that's what the working group should use.
Personally, I think that it is far better for this group to be forced
to close by the wise IESG than to produce OPES protocols that are not
much better than the existing ones. It is better to produce nothing
[new] than to just further dilute protocol set for OPES-like things.
We have to build the "best" OPES protocols to justify this WG
existence.
i have yet to attend an engineering meeting where the goal is the
"best". the goal is never the "best". the goal is to get things right
enough, cheap enough, and fast enough to solve enough of the problem and
then move on.
i have attended many research meetings, where the goal, as you might
expect is the "best".
fundamentally, i have to put the ietf and it's working groups into the
engineering category. others' mileage may, of course, vary.
/mtr