[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: set of OPES documents


Alex Rousskov wrote:

It would help authors to know the set of final OPES documents so
that appropriate cross-references can be made before all documents
are written. The set can change at any time, of course.

Yup. In general, however, let me second Hilarie''s advise (in a later email) that we should try to avoid a *large* number of related drafts. This does *not* preclude having separate, focused drafts as you propose, but if there are multiple choices on how to split them, a general guideline would be to keep the number of separate documents low (as feasible).

I would like to suggest the following set. It is based on a principle
that it is better to have one application-specific document per
application. An alternative is to have one application-specific
document per application, per application-independent draft.

Following above guideline, I would be tempted to lean towards the former approach, namely having one application-specific document per application.

The set is incomplete, I only mention some documents we care about at
this time:

Application-independent documents:

		OPES Architecture
		draft-ietf-opes-architecture

		OPES Callout Protocol Core
		draft-ietf-opes-ocp

		OPES Tracing
		draft-ietf-opes-trace

		OPES Bypass
		draft-ietf-opes-bypass

As suggested later, I like the idea of combining the later two, since both are concerned about conveying information towards the end-user(s).

Application-specific documents:

		OPES adaptation of HTTP
		draft-ietf-opes-http

		OPES adaptation of SMTP
		draft-ietf-opes-smtp

		OPES adaptation of FooBarP
		draft-ietf-opes-foobarp

Yes, but only the first one (on HTTP) would be within the current charter of the WG.

-Markus