RE: OPES Re-Charter

I can contribute to any of these items, it's just a matter of scoping out
what it needs to be done so we can possibly divide the work.

Regards,

Reinaldo 

-----Original Message-----
From: Geetha Manjunath [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 12:14 AM
To: Martin Stecher
Cc: OPES Group
Subject: Re: OPES Re-Charter



I would like to contribute to the Rules Language work.

regards
Geetha

Martin Stecher wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to actively participate in the OCP/SMTP and OCP Security 
> topics.
>
> Regards
> Martin
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: [email protected] 
> > [mailto:[email protected]]Im Auftrag von Alex 
> > Rousskov
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2004 18:28
> > An: Markus Hofmann
> > Cc: OPES Group
> > Betreff: Re: OPES Re-Charter
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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!
> >
> >