Alex,
Correction: Please replace
"operating on SMTP messages" with
"adapting SMTP"
I never liked the term "adaptation" too much for describing OPES
services, since there are OPES services that do *not* adapt, i.e.
don't change dataat all (logging being one example). Any specific
reason why you prefer the term "adapting"?
"forward SMTP messages (or parts thereof)" with
"forward SMTP data and metadata".
Sounds good, I'll change that.
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...
Same feeling about using the term "adaptation" as above. I would
consider the current phrasing OK, but if there are strong feelings I'd
be open to re-phrase.
Question2: Should APR05 deadline have something like "to IESG as
Proposed Standard(s)"?
Yup, will add that.
Thanks much!!
-Markus