On Thu, 8 May 2003, jfcm wrote:
At 18:23 08/05/03, Alex Rousskov wrote:
I am sure there are other points. These biased lists are based on two
points of views: OCP author and OCP/ICAP implementor.
I would like we clarify which is which (author, implemtator to try
to best decide and document);
Both authors and implementors/coders care about the scope (item #1)
and XML worries.
"less/more OCP work for us" is mostly for authors; however, Marshall
and others may argue that this group is doomed to produce inferior
specs and, thus, the less work we do ourselves (the more we reuse),
the better for everybody involved, including coders.
Implementation complexity is mostly for implementors/coders but it
also reflects authors ability to write simple protocols.
Migration motivation and complexity is mostly for those who
advocate/market the new protocol or sell/install products based on the
new protocol.
IETF pummeling is mostly for us, the authors. However, the same factor
can be viewed as "reuse of existing technology". The latter is
important to implementors.
I do not really see a product description for an implementator.
By "implementor", I meant those who will code or program OCP
specification. What those people need is a protocol specification. We
already have most of it for ICAP/1.1 case. We probably have enough for
the other two cases; see the current OCP Core draft and the BEEP
specification, and I also posted some examples.
By "author" I meant us, the working group.
I made a draft in HTML. I can keep doing it if I receive additions
from others. http://jefsey.com/ocp.htm
You can make it a table to ease comparison (something I could not do
in ASCII in the original e-mail): "OCP flavors" as horizontal heading,
"decision factors" as vertical heading, and things like
none/low/average/high as table cells.
Alex.