On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, jfcm wrote:
- but with their difference : push vs. retrieve, unique vs.
multiple, text vs mail, access vs send.
I agree that there are many differences between HTTP and SMTP. I am
sure that future "SMTP adaptation" draft will be different from the
existing "HTTP adaptation" draft. However, I do not see your point.
Why/How those differences affect the charter? Does the charter somehow
imply that HTTP and SMTP adaptations are the same? Does it imply that
we will simply rename "HTTP adaptations" draft into "SMTP adaptations"
draft and ship it? I do not think so.
For example:
[snip]
IMHO but as long as these issues have not be taken into account,
- we will be objected that we did not do our home work
- we may conflict with other projects
- we will meet major difficulties in understanding what we will discuss....
The differences between HTTP and SMTP should be taken into account, of
course. In fact, our HTTP work is pretty much irrelevant for the SMTP
draft! Only OCP Core and OPES Communications work is relevant. Why do
you even compare with HTTP?
Again sorry, I may be totally wrong, but the current charter just does not
make sense to me in a network environment
What exactly does not make sense? The assertion that we can use OCP
Core to facilitate SMTP adaptations? There is not much else in the
current charter, as far as SMTP is concerned!
Are you saying that the charter does not prohibit certain kinds of
SMTP adaptations and it should? If yes, what are those kinds?
Are you saying that the charter does not define certain words related
to SMTP adaptations and it should? If yes, what are those words?
Let's try to drive this debate closer to the charter text. What
exactly is wrong (and how it should be fixed)...
Thank you,
Alex.