Re: OPES Re-Charter

Folks,

from the responses so far and from earlier discussions, there is 
interest in the OCP/SMTP profile and the rules language, and five 
folks indicated their availability to work on these items.
Interest was also expressed on an "OCP Security" draft. However, given 
past participation/experience and given that only five folks offered 
active participation, one might be reluctant to add items on top of 
the two mentioned above. As such, I'd suggest to keep a new charter 
narrow and focused on OCP/SMTP profile and rules language. Once these 
items have been completed successfully, additional items could 
possibly be worked into a future re-charter.
The OCP/SMTP profile item seems pretty clear. Any specific things that 
need to be considered when phrasing a charter item on that? Any 
related work in the IETF we need to consider?
For the rules language, I'd like to have some more discussion on the 
scope. Previous discussions drifted a little bit into the space of a 
"programming language" for intermediary services. Originally, the 
rules language was meant to simply indicate to an OPES processor which 
services to invoke on a given message. Also, I'd assume that we'd 
build on the previous work that was done on "P". Any thoughts?
Thanks,
  Markus

Markus Hofmann wrote:
> Folks,
>
> time to start discussion and work on a new charter for the WG. In case 
> there's enough interest and willingness to continue the work, let's try 
> to draft a new charter in time for the upcoming IETF meeting in San Diego.
> BUT: WE'LL ONLY DRAFT A NEW CHARTER IF THERE ARE ENOUGH ACTIVE 
> PARTICIPANTS COMMITTED TO WORKING ON THE NEW ITEMS!
>  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.
> In the interest of having a very focused and narrow charter (and from 
> previous discussions), I would suggest to focus on the first two topics. 
> If this is agreeable, we'd continue to work on a charter for these two 
> items.
>
> Unfortunately, Marshall will no longer be available as Co-Chair, due to 
> time commitments to other things. A big "Thank you" is in order for 
> Marshall's help and support in focusing the WG and moving it forward - 
>  Thanks, Marshall.
> We're trying to find a new Co-Chair, but will already start working on a 
> new charter.
> Thanks,
>   Markus