Subject: OPES Re-Charter

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:37:37 -0400

Folks,

time to start discussion and work on a new charter for the WG. In case 
there's enough interest and willingness to continue the work, let's 
try to draft a new charter in time for the upcoming IETF meeting in 
San Diego.

BUT: WE'LL ONLY DRAFT A NEW CHARTER IF THERE ARE ENOUGH ACTIVE 
PARTICIPANTS COMMITTED TO WORKING ON THE NEW ITEMS!

 From previous discussions, the following candidate topics for 
re-chartering have been discussed:

(1) Rules Language
(2) OCP profile for SMTP
(3) Support for streaming media
(4) Others?

Please indicate which topics are of interest to you, and whether you 
can commit to work on the respective item(s). We can move forward only 
if folks are able to spend the time required for making progress.

In the interest of having a very focused and narrow charter (and from 
previous discussions), I would suggest to focus on the first two 
topics. If this is agreeable, we'd continue to work on a charter for 
these two items.

Unfortunately, Marshall will no longer be available as Co-Chair, due 
to time commitments to other things. A big "Thank you" is in order for 
Marshall's help and support in focusing the WG and moving it forward - 
  Thanks, Marshall.

We're trying to find a new Co-Chair, but will already start working on 
a new charter.

Thanks,
   Markus

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:27:39 -0600 (MDT)

> if folks are able to spend the time required for making progress.

I hope to be able to actively work on P Core and OCP/SMTP profile,
provided there are other people willing to help or lead.

Also, we should discuss whether the charter should include an "OCP
Security" draft that details negotiated features like transport-level
security and agent authentication. Is anybody interested in securing
OCP communications. Does anybody want to take a lead on that?

As you know, there have been P and OCP interest a few months ago, when
the question first came up. I hope folks are still interested, despite
the recent WG "blackout" (one of those IETF process things we have to
live with, I guess).

If there is NOT enough interest to keep the WG alive, the OCP/SMTP
profile can probably be written as an individual draft. I am less sure
about P work. It seems there are some fundamental rule language
scoping issues that are better resolved in a WG setting.

Thanks,

Alex.

P.S. Thank you, Marshall, for putting up with this working group!

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:03:37 +0200

Sorry, I could not keep with the work and political load.
I certainly keep reading and supporting.
I am however lost with the accomplished task real status.
I would suggest a summary and "what can be built with" page would preface 
the charter.
And may be links to what is on the market today/sometimes.

SMTP and DNS are my priorities.
jfc

At 17:37 09/06/04, Markus Hofmann wrote:
>there's enough interest and willingness to continue the work, let's try to 
>draft a new charter in time for the upcoming IETF meeting in San Diego.
>
>Please indicate which topics are of interest to you, and whether you can 
>commit to work on the respective item(s). We can move forward only if 
>folks are able to spend the time required for making progress.
>
>previous discussions), I would suggest to focus on the first two topics. 
>If this is agreeable, we'd continue to work on a charter for these two items.
>
>
>Unfortunately, Marshall will no longer be available as Co-Chair, due to 
>time commitments to other things. A big "Thank you" is in order for 
>Marshall's help and support in focusing the WG and moving it forward 
>-  Thanks, Marshall.
>
>We're trying to find a new Co-Chair, but will already start working on a 
>new charter.
>
>Thanks,
>   Markus
>
>
>

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:39:04 -0400

Folks,

from the responses so far and from earlier discussions, there is 
interest in the OCP/SMTP profile and the rules language, and five 
folks indicated their availability to work on these items.

Interest was also expressed on an "OCP Security" draft. However, given 
past participation/experience and given that only five folks offered 
active participation, one might be reluctant to add items on top of 
the two mentioned above. As such, I'd suggest to keep a new charter 
narrow and focused on OCP/SMTP profile and rules language. Once these 
items have been completed successfully, additional items could 
possibly be worked into a future re-charter.

The OCP/SMTP profile item seems pretty clear. Any specific things that 
need to be considered when phrasing a charter item on that? Any 
related work in the IETF we need to consider?

For the rules language, I'd like to have some more discussion on the 
scope. Previous discussions drifted a little bit into the space of a 
"programming language" for intermediary services. Originally, the 
rules language was meant to simply indicate to an OPES processor which 
services to invoke on a given message. Also, I'd assume that we'd 
build on the previous work that was done on "P". Any thoughts?

Thanks,
   Markus

Markus Hofmann wrote:
> there's enough interest and willingness to continue the work, let's try 
> to draft a new charter in time for the upcoming IETF meeting in San Diego.
>

---

From: Alex Rousskov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:11:38 -0600 (MDT)

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:

> Interest was also expressed on an "OCP Security" draft. However,
> given past participation/experience and given that only five folks
> offered active participation, one might be reluctant to add items on
> top of the two mentioned above. As such, I'd suggest to keep a new
> charter narrow and focused on OCP/SMTP profile and rules language.
> Once these items have been completed successfully, additional items
> could possibly be worked into a future re-charter.

I do not have a problem with the above, but I would suggest that those
interested working on the security draft, still do it as a individual
draft and submit it for WG consideration when it is almost ready. We
can have the corresponding "consider adoption of security draft, if
any" item on the charter, without committing any WG work at this
point. The charter can be easily expanded later if the draft is
adopted. Would that work for others?

Thanks,

Alex.

P.S. I will post my comments regarding OCP/SMTP and P specifics later.

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:47:42 -0400

> adopted. Would that work for others?

If we don't commit working on it, I'd prefer to keep it off the charter.

No problem if individuals make progress on the security front, as long 
as it doesn't distract/take resources from work on the charter items. 
When the draft is mature, the WG can certainly consider adopting the work.

-Markus

---

From: Geetha Manjunath <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:45:48 +0530

> build on the previous work that was done on "P". Any thoughts?

We could start from 'P' - may need some enhancements though . But I think  we
need to separate the 'runtime specification' and 'language specification' in
some form.

We can also  work on the method of  configuring  an OPES with some rules (may be
even by transporting) - if that can be under the purview of the WG..

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:04:04 -0400

> need to separate the 'runtime specification' and 'language specification' in

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "runtime specification"? My 
feeling is that the WG should focus on the "language specification".

> even by transporting) - if that can be under the purview of the WG..

Good point, but this can be kept separate from the language 
specification, and I'd suggest to take this on only after the other 
items have been finished, i.e. in a possible later charter or charter 
update.

-Markus

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:43:39 +0200

>need to separate the 'runtime specification' and 'language specification' in

Could you please help. What is "P". Were is it documented?
jfc

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:47:16 -0400

> Could you please help. What is "P". Were is it documented?

http://www.measurement-factory.com/tmp/opes/

-Markus