Subject: OPES or not OPES

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 01:30:06 +0200

Any chance that this WG restarts?
jfc

---

From: Markus Hofmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:38:08 -0400

> Any chance that this WG restarts?

Valid question! Here's the status to the best of my knowledge:

- Abbie indicated that he won't be able to continue working on OPES at 
the moment (although he might be back at a later point in time). 
Martin took over the "SMTP Use Cases" draft and is currently 
re-writing it based on comments from the last meeting. I would hope we 
can have a "WG Last Call" within th next two weeks.

- Once the Use Cases draft is wrapped up, we'll have to start working 
on the OCP/SMTP draft at full speed. We must have a reasonably first 
draft before the Paris meeting - cut-off date is July 11. This leaves 
us only 5 weeks or so... Martin indicated that he'd be willing to take 
a lead on this work, too. Anyone else interested, please let Martin, 
Tony, and me know. If we don't make good progress soon, I'd recommend 
to close the WG.

- Alex provided an analyzis/thoughts on Sieve and "P", which received 
a few comments. We cannot declare consensus on whether to extend sieve 
or continue with "P" based on three emails. If there's no 
enthusiasm/interest on this topic we should fold it. If someone has a 
strong feeling on either sieve or "P" or something else, I suggest the 
person to write an initial individual draft to get something going. 
Otherwise, I suggest we remove this item from the charter.

Key problem, however, seems to be a lack of interest in actually 
deploying OPES. Otherwise there would be more people willing to 
actively work on it.

Thanks,
   Markus

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 17:44:11 +0200

At 16:38 31/05/2005, Markus Hofmann wrote:
>Key problem, however, seems to be a lack of interest in actually deploying 
>OPES. Otherwise there would be more people willing to actively work on it.

Huge need, IMHO (from propositions I made to the ITU and I would like to 
insert into mad-WG-ltru lack of thinking), but not with the adopted 
architecture. This is why I would propose that before closing the shop with 
think about "ROPES", reverse OPES where instead of being seen as a 
supported smart middle-box, we would consider a smart network with shims 
inserted on the path, leadership being to the server - shims being 
potentially shared - not to what you want to call OPES.

jfc