Re: Strawman OPES Charter

jfcm wrote:

> I would like to see a reference to P in the existing achievements. To 
> know where it fits. This might clarify the questions about P, IRL, etc 
> later on?

Proposed changes to the new charter now explicitly refer tp "P".

> I am disturbed by the imbalance. First was developped a profile for HTTP 
> (a protocol),  now we want to support applications (not a protocol) 
> using messages transported by a protocol. What about messages supported 
> by other protocols. This is one of the fall out of my remark about the 
> judge analysis. If the messages are considered they could be transported 
> by http, ftp etc.

So far, we've specified a OCP/HTTP profile that supports services 
operating on HTTP messages.

Now we specify a OCP/SMTP profile that supports services operating on 
SMTP messages.

I would assume this becomes clear from the proposed charter.

> One of the key element in SMTP is routing. My main interest in OPES (as 
> long as they do not support ONES and interoperations) is in massaging 
> routing elements (what permits to correct DNS or SMPT recipient 
> informations).
> - is this included ?
> - this may forbide the wording about one end to agree. Let say A send a 
> mail to B and B (or law) wants an OPES changing B into C. The C real 
> termination is not necessarily informed. Also correction is impossible 
> since the mail information arrived to C is compromised. If C demands the 
> OPES action to be corrected, C will nevertheless know what was in the 
> message.

All future work will have to follow the one-party consent model, i.e. 
at least one of the ends has to authorize the servive (this,, of 
course, can be done implcitily).

> My Franglish is lost. HTTP/SMTP messages ?

That is meant to say "...HTTP or SMTP messages". Will change that.

Thanks,
   Markus