Subject: Publishing OCP Draft as WG Document

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:23:46 -0400

Hi,

I suggest that the current OCP document gets adopted and published as 
WG Internet Draft, from which the WG will continue to work on.

We already discussed this a while back. Unless someone objects by 
beginning of next week, I'd ask Alex to submit the OCP document for 
publication as WG document.

Note that this is still work in progress, and that the WG will 
continue to work on the protocol and on the document.

-Markus

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 15:29:38 -0600 (MDT)

Would it make sense to rename OCP Core to something less general?
There already seems to be consensus that our callout protocol may not
be the only callout protocol. ICAP can certainly be used as a callout
protocol in certain environments. Some other callout protocols might
be used for on-the-same-CPU adaptation using proxy plugins/servelets
and such. Moreover, as jfc pointed out several times, some may want to
use our protocol outside of pure-OPES environment.

Given all of the above, would it make sense to call our callout
protocol something like:
	ICAP/2.0 (without acronym expansion),
	DEP (Data Exchange Protocol),
	ADEP (Application Data Exchange Protocol),
	DSP (Data Swap/Substitution Protocol),
	ADSP (Application Data Swap/Substitution Protocol),
	DCP (Data Change Protocol),
	DAP (Data Adaptation Protocol)?

where [Application] Data can be replaced with [Application] Message if
desired, and "Adaptation" may not be the best choice because the
protocol does not really adapt anything, it just facilitates
application message exchange.

Thanks,

Alex.