Subject: Re: draft-beck-opes-irml-03.txt

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 23:07:58 +0200

Not much interest in my proposition in here about alternative IP :-) but 
interest taken in some potential financing places. We will see.

I just went across an interesting concept on the IMAA list. The problem is 
to support vernacular (real life, law consistent) LHS (left hand side) in 
e-mails. One idea could be to develop a meta data system.

1. I write my mails with a lot of additional data (Rich text)
2. An opes reduces it to standard presentation plus meta data
3. a possible OPES in front of the receiving mail server restores the rich 
text he receiving server can or want understand.

The rich text information (as in RTF vs ascii text) is optional:
- upper cases in the LHS or special characters
- classing  system shared between members of a group
- url of the author
- translated appendix
- etc...
... and anti spam verification.

This corresponds to the only want to make internet systems evolve : 
encapsulating them into added value layers.

Comments? I may have an application for a financing in a few months.
jfc

---

From: "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:23:55 -0600

Text markup and presentation seems like an end system application.  I can't
see any advantage to having it done as part of delivery.  It would make
a lot of sense to have the marked-up text available for translation into
several different formats (pdf, word, html) even after the initial delivery,
so it does not seem like an OPES application.

Anti-spam, though, seems like a good OPES application.  It involves delivery,
it involves using an existing protocol (SMTP) embedded inside another
protocol state machine, it only needs to be done once as part of message
delivery.

Hilarie

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 15:31:49 +0200

>so it does not seem like an OPES application.

Unfortunately (fortunately?) this cannot be the case for three main reasons:

1. the support of the existing systems. Today we still have Bind 4 in 
operation on many name servers. We will still have current MUAs for a long.

2. this will protect the users interest as every user does not necessarily 
need a complex MUA able to support many features in addition to the today ones.

3. the IAB/IETF trend is to refuse the users demand in that area expressed 
by language groups such as Eurolinc (of which I Chair the WG-IDN). The 
demand is for Vernacular Names, ie names which are the ones used in real 
life (language, law, programs, documents, geography, culture, peoples 
names, etc.). This means for example the support of case-sensitive mailboxes.

In making their support an option that an OPES may filter out, we permit 
them to develop while keeping continuity

>protocol state machine, it only needs to be done once as part of message

Anti-Spam as filtering needs to be odnne once as a part of the mesage 
delivery. But anti-spam by dialog between sender's and receiver's OPES 
through OCP is an interesting feature which may add to value added mail 
services. An example is an acknowledgement system. Mail system does not 
support any mail delivery reporting. Using frontal Mail Opes might permit 
it with a mail control tower  among a community. It could permit meta / 
common archiving too. etc.

jfc