On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 21:48 +0200, Martin Stecher wrote:
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.
I am happy to help with the OCP/SMTP draft but only on the sidelines. I
agree that it would be nice to have a good "solution" in case SMTP folks
need it, but I lack resources and motivation to contribute on a more
substantial level, especially knowing how many SMTP folks are going to
tell us that we are violating their protocols and damaging their
networks.
Alex.
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-ietf-openproxy(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org im Auftrag von
Clemens Perz
Gesendet: Do 11.08.2005 04:26
An: OPES Group
Cc:
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
>>
>