Subject: Protocol next steps

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:22:45 -0500

Hi,

just a quick summary on how we want to proceed the next few days.

Alex agreed to put the pre-draft ideas into the form of an Internet 
Draft. Once this is done, he'll send it out to the OPES mailing list, 
and the WG has to decide whether we want to adopt this as WG document 
right away, or what would have to be done to adopt this as WG document 
(in which case the draft might be published as individual submission, 
first, and WG document later). Based on this draft, the WG wil lthen 
decide on the protocol bindings.

Abbie agreed to take a lead on the work item on "relationship to 
application message protocol", basically looking at mechanisms (e.g. 
HTTP header extensions) required for tracing, debugging, and OPES bypass.

For all the work items, we'll haevily rely on feedback from the WG, 
and on working with the WG through the mailing list. So, please keep 
posting your comments and questions, we want to keep up the momentum 
we gained during the last few weeks!! Thanks to everyone's (past and 
future) contributions!

Thanks,
   Markus

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:23:15 -0700 (MST)

-- re-sending:
   the original posting probably exceeded list's posting size limit

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:

> Draft. Once this is done, he'll send it out to the OPES mailing
> list, and the WG has to decide whether we want to adopt this as WG
> document right away, or what would have to be done to adopt this as
> WG document (in which case the draft might be published as
> individual submission, first, and WG document later). Based on this
> draft, the WG wil lthen decide on the protocol bindings.

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.

(*) If you prefer HTML rendering of the same draft, it is temporary
    available at http://www.measurement-factory.com/tmp/opes/

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:50 -0500

> specifics until the draft is published (so that we have a clear

As Alex mentioned, this draft tries to summarize the dicussions we had 
on the mailing list on the protocol issue. As such, I would assume it 
reflects the current thinking of the WG reasonably well, and it might 
be worthwhile to publish this as a WG document. Obviously, the 
document will change with input from others in the WG and additional 
authors might get added, but it seems like a good starting point for 
our WG document.

Please spend some time to carefully review the document and provide 
any feedback you have to the mailing list.

Thanks,
   Markus

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:30:22 -0700 (MST)

> any feedback you have to the mailing list.

I would like to propose the following timeline to make sure the draft
does not get stuck in its current "unknown state" for long.

	- If anybody opposes to the publication of the draft
	  as a WG document, please say so by April 4th.

	- If there are any additions or modifications that
	  MUST be made before publishing the draft as a
	  WG document, please say so before April 4th.

	- If there are no objections, the draft will be
	  submitted for publication as a WG document
	  when all required additions and modifications
	  are implemented (probably by April 9th).

	- If there are objections, the draft may
	  still be published as an individual submission, to
	  document the current state (including the
	  objections).

If you do not like the above plan, please propose something better. We
do need a published/documented reference point to move on faster.

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:02:35 -0500

> do need a published/documented reference point to move on faster.

Sounds perfectly fine to me, let's execute on this plan!

As such, if anyone has objections to publishing this as WG draft, 
please speak up *before April 4th* on this mailing list. Obviously, 
the draft will be worked on after publication of the initial release, 
based on input and with contrinutions from the WG. The deadline is 
only for objections to declaring this a WG draft!

-Markus

---

From: "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:16:19 -0700

The timeline you suggest is not one I can meet.  I suggest extending this
to the end of April.

Hilarie

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:32:05 -0800

> The timeline you suggest is not one I can meet.  I suggest extending this

the end of april is too far way. if april 4th doesn't work for you, we can push
it to the middle of next week, say the 9th... otherwise, i'd rather we consider
just closing up shop due to lack of metabolism.

/mtr