[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Moving Forward
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
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
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-ietf-openproxy@xxxxxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Clemens Perz
> Gesendet: Do 11.08.2005 04:26
> An: OPES Group
> Betreff: Re: Moving Forward
> 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
> --On Mittwoch, 10. August 2005 20:16 -0400 Markus Hofmann <markus@xxxxxxxx>
> > 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