Re: Strawman OPES Charter

Alex Rousskov wrote:

> It does not. The problem is with the specific deliverables that seem
> to mention just one language specification/document rather that a core
> language plus modules approach:
> 
>     DATE Initial document on OPES rules language
>     DATE Submit document on OPES rules language to
>          IESG for Proposed Standard
> 
> Should we rephrase so that multiple documents are allowed?

What about:

SEP04   Initial document(s) on OPES rules language
MAY05   Submit document(s) on OPES rules language to
         IESG for Proposed Standard

> Sounds like it excludes other protocols from being considered when
> designing the core language. How about:
> 
>      Define a rules language to control OPES processor selection
>      and execution of OPES services, including HTTP and SMTP
>      adaptation services.

Let's committ to producing a solution that at least supports HTTP and 
SMTP, but not more.

We aim to define a language that is open to support others as well, 
but we don't get into trouble if it turns out to be too complex. 
That's exactly what we did with the protocol in the current charter - 
we were chartered to define a solution for HTTP. but we were able to 
come up with an elegent solution that is flexible enough to support 
other protocols as well.

So I'd suggest to stick with "Define a rules language to control the 
selection and invocation of HTTP-based or SMTP-based OPES services."

-Markus

PS: I'll go through the reamining comments and will send out an update 
charter once I got through.