RE: Moving Forward

[Alex Rousskov <rousskov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx>
> 	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
> 	>>
> 	>
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 
>