I can contribute to any of these items, it's just a matter of scoping out
what it needs to be done so we can possibly divide the work.
Regards,
Reinaldo
-----Original Message-----
From: Geetha Manjunath [mailto:geetham(_at_)india(_dot_)hp(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 12:14 AM
To: Martin Stecher
Cc: OPES Group
Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter
I would like to contribute to the Rules Language work.
regards
Geetha
Martin Stecher wrote:
Hi,
I would like to actively participate in the OCP/SMTP and OCP Security
topics.
Regards
Martin
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-ietf-openproxy(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-openproxy(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]Im Auftrag von
Alex
Rousskov
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2004 18:28
An: Markus Hofmann
Cc: OPES Group
Betreff: Re: OPES Re-Charter
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:
From previous discussions, the following candidate topics for
re-chartering have been discussed:
(1) Rules Language
(2) OCP profile for SMTP
(3) Support for streaming media
(4) Others?
Please indicate which topics are of interest to you, and whether
you can commit to work on the respective item(s). We can move
forward only
if folks are able to spend the time required for making progress.
I hope to be able to actively work on P Core and OCP/SMTP profile,
provided there are other people willing to help or lead.
Also, we should discuss whether the charter should include an "OCP
Security" draft that details negotiated features like
transport-level security and agent authentication. Is anybody
interested in securing OCP communications. Does anybody want to take
a lead on that?
As you know, there have been P and OCP interest a few months ago,
when the question first came up. I hope folks are still interested,
despite the recent WG "blackout" (one of those IETF process things
we have to live with, I guess).
If there is NOT enough interest to keep the WG alive, the OCP/SMTP
profile can probably be written as an individual draft. I am less
sure about P work. It seems there are some fundamental rule language
scoping issues that are better resolved in a WG setting.
Thanks,
Alex.
P.S. Thank you, Marshall, for putting up with this working group!