Markus,
I have only one important correction and two minor questions:
Correction: Please replace
"operating on SMTP messages" with
"adapting SMTP"
and
"forward SMTP messages (or parts thereof)" with
"forward SMTP data and metadata".
This change should capture everything we might need to adapt.
I think Martin gave us enough use cases to at least include SMTP
command adaptation in the charter, but I am not sure we will end up
adapting commands themselves and not SMTP state. Martin's examples
seem to indicate that we are talking about some processing state
adaptation.
Question1: Should "OCP/SMTP profile for X" in deadlines be replaced
with something like "SMTP adaptation for X with OPES"? Since those
drafts will include tracing/bypass profile as well as OCP profile, it
seems wrong to call them just "OCP/SMTP profile". We called HTTP draft
"HTTP adaptation with OPES" for that reason...
Question2: Should APR05 deadline have something like "to IESG as
Proposed Standard(s)"?
Thanks,
Alex.
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:
In a next step, the WG will specify one or more OCP profiles that will
support OPES services operating on SMTP messages. ...
and forward SMTP messages (or parts thereof) to a callout server for
additional processing. ...
...
- Develop a scenarios and use case document for OPES
services operating on SMTP messages.
...
OCT04 Submit use cases document for OPES services
operating on SMTP messages to IESG for
Informational.
DEC04 Initial document on OCP/SMTP profile for MTAs.
FEB05 Submit document on OCP/SMTP profile for MTAs to
IESG for Proposed Standard.
APR05 Submit document(s) on OCP/SMTP profile(s) for those
other SMTP agents the WG has decided to work on, if
any.