Subject: RE: Protocol next steps

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:09:33 -0500

Hi Alex,
Just a small comment re. your OCP draft! Didn't you need to use "qualifier" rather than "quantifier" in the introductory part of the draft!

-Srini

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Alex Rousskov [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 12:23 PM
>To: OPES Group
>Subject: Re: Protocol next steps
>
>
>
>Attached is a plain text version of the OCP draft(*). The document is
>currently formated as an individual submission. As Markus has
>explained above, the working group has to decide how to move forward
>with it.
>
>There are obviously many XXXs, missing and ugly parts in the draft,
>but the overall shape of the protocol should be visible. I think it is
>time to make this a reference point before we proceed with bindings
>and with solving specific protocol issues. The predraft document I
>have been working on is no longer good enough because external
>reviewers/helpers do not know about it and because it is time to
>document consensus.
>
>Since this draft is not yet a product of the working group, nothing it
>currently contains implies consensus. Everything is subject to a
>discussion and change. I just documented what we have discussed on the
>list and made several subjective decisions where some decisions were
>needed to build a coherent protocol spec.
>
>Again, we now need to decide whether the draft should be submitted as
>a working group draft. If there are some modifications that must
>happen first, please let me know, but let's not argue too much about
>specifics until the draft is published (so that we have a clear
>reference point).
>
>Thank you,
>
>Alex.

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:54:31 -0700 (MST)

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 [email-masked] wrote:

> Didn't you need to use "qualifier" rather than "quantifier" in the
> introductory part of the draft!

Yes, of course. Now fixed.

Thanks,

Alex.