jfcm wrote:
I would like to see a reference to P in the existing achievements. To
know where it fits. This might clarify the questions about P, IRL, etc
later on?
Proposed changes to the new charter now explicitly refer tp "P".
I am disturbed by the imbalance. First was developped a profile for HTTP
(a protocol), now we want to support applications (not a protocol)
using messages transported by a protocol. What about messages supported
by other protocols. This is one of the fall out of my remark about the
judge analysis. If the messages are considered they could be transported
by http, ftp etc.
So far, we've specified a OCP/HTTP profile that supports services
operating on HTTP messages.
Now we specify a OCP/SMTP profile that supports services operating on
SMTP messages.
I would assume this becomes clear from the proposed charter.
One of the key element in SMTP is routing. My main interest in OPES (as
long as they do not support ONES and interoperations) is in massaging
routing elements (what permits to correct DNS or SMPT recipient
informations).
- is this included ?
- this may forbide the wording about one end to agree. Let say A send a
mail to B and B (or law) wants an OPES changing B into C. The C real
termination is not necessarily informed. Also correction is impossible
since the mail information arrived to C is compromised. If C demands the
OPES action to be corrected, C will nevertheless know what was in the
message.
All future work will have to follow the one-party consent model, i.e.
at least one of the ends has to authorize the servive (this,, of
course, can be done implcitily).
My Franglish is lost. HTTP/SMTP messages ?
That is meant to say "...HTTP or SMTP messages". Will change that.
Thanks,
Markus