Re: Status Update
2004-12-01 08:45:19
jfcm wrote:
Sorry for this. (a) but better to ask: where can one find the most
appropriate definition of sieve?
http://ietf.org/html.charters/sieve-charter.html for the sieve WG, but
it doesn't have a link to the latest sieve definition.
(b) should we not first stabilize the
list of applications?
We'll do that in parallel, Martin and Abbie are getting started and
will have something to share soon.
Also, I know that we are not supposed to discuss architecture, but I see
an increasing documented debate over NATs and all the functions actually
located at "NATs." - in my wording I name them "corebox" when they are
the actual core of the users vision of the networks. This seems one of
the natural location for OPES and additional services. So, without
discussing architecture, I suggest that we adopt the most open mind
toward applications/protocol and we enlarge to
_mail/structured_signals_, not only on SMTP?
The charter is claer - it's SMTP. This does *not* prevent us from
keeping the larger picture in mind when designing solutions (jus as we
did with the HTTP work), but the deliverables ask for SMTP only and
that's our focus.
-Markus
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Status Update,
Markus Hofmann <=
|
|
|