Re: Moving Forward

Clemens - everyone willing to actively contribute is welcome. Thanksfor your offer to help ith the a draft.

Martin - thanks for you willingness to start working with Clemens on adraft. I, too, would hope that Alex will play a role in here, too.

I would suggest that you start puttig together a strawman draft, afirst sketch, and quickly publish an initial version for furtherdiscussion on the list. This will allow to gather fast initialfeedback, andalso help gauging the interest in such OCP profile (wouldhope to see some real discussion on the list).


Thanks,
  Markus

Martin Stecher wrote:

Hi Clemens,

every active participant is more than welcome.

I also appreciate your positive view, maybe I got too pessimistic recently.

If the group agrees that we should continue with our current milestones, I am happy to work with you on the OCP/SMTP draft, hoping that Alex will at least be available to discuss some OCP details, better as co-author.So, what are the others thinking about OCP/SMTP? Should we do this - now?Regards

Martin

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----Von: owner-ietf-openproxy(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org im Auftrag von Clemens PerzGesendet: Do 11.08.2005 04:26An: OPES GroupCc:Betreff: Re: Moving Forward

        
        


        Hi,
        
        If you are willing to consider the contribution of a complete greenhorn 
to
        this Working Group, I would like to work with Martin on the OCP/SMTP 
draft.
        I'm not sure if it needs to be on the Charter for that, but it should 
not
        be forgotten in any way.
        
        My experience is that the people who could benefit from such a standard 
do
        not know about the OPES Working Group and the potential it's work 
creates.
        While the SMTP threats grow and the search for more flexible 
infrastructure
        solutions becomes more hectic, it would be nice to have the phoenix 
ready
        in the fire :)
        
        The relevance of the OCP/SMTP might be underestimated by us and the
        markets, because many people do not take their time yet to get the whole
        picture. Offering a flexible protocol solution could change that very
        quickly.
        
        Cheers,
        
        Clemens
        
        
        --On Mittwoch, 10. August 2005 20:16 -0400 Markus Hofmann 
<markus(_at_)mhof(_dot_)com>
        wrote:
        
        >
        > Martin,
        >
        > so what would you propose is the next step after removing OCP/SMTP 
from
        > the charter?
        >
        > All - everyone in agreement with Martin, or does somebody see a
        > need/interest for OCP/SMTP?
        >
        > Thanks,
        >    Markus
        >
        > Martin Stecher wrote:
        >> Hi,
        >>
        >> I am available for OPES protocol work and willing to act as a 
co-author
        >> for OCP profile drafts.
        >> But I am not convinced that OCP/SMTP is the next step. As there seems
        >> to be no other interest in this we should indeed have the open SMTP
        >> milestones to be removed from the charter, for now, IMO.
        >> There is no current OCP/SMTP demand by the industry today.
        >>
        >> In principle I believe that OCP has the ability to act as an 
universal
        >> protocol agnostig callout protocol and that OCP/SMTP can and should 
be
        >> done at some time.
        >>
        >> But with the limited resources we have in this group today we must 
focus
        >> on those adaptations that are of immediate need and use for someone.
        >> There we can proof that OCP is a powerful, application agnostic 
protocol
        >> with useful and needed protocol profiles.
        >> Only then we can get to first implementations that may then hopefully
        >> cut the Gordian knot we are facing today.
        >> And after that we may be asked to return to OCP/SMTP.
        >>
        >> Regards
        >> Martin
        >>
        >