Re: Latest Charter Proposal

Alex,

> Correction: Please replace
> 	"operating on SMTP messages" with
> 	"adapting SMTP"

I never liked the term "adaptation" too much for describing OPES 
services, since there are OPES services that do *not* adapt, i.e. 
don't change dataat all (logging being one example). Any specific 
reason why you prefer the term "adapting"?

> 	"forward SMTP messages (or parts thereof)" with
> 	"forward SMTP data and metadata".

Sounds good, I'll change that.

> Question1: Should "OCP/SMTP profile for X" in deadlines be replaced
> with something like "SMTP adaptation for X with OPES"? Since those
> drafts will include tracing/bypass profile as well as OCP profile, it
> seems wrong to call them just "OCP/SMTP profile". We called HTTP draft
> "HTTP adaptation with OPES" for that reason...

Same feeling about using the term "adaptation" as above. I would 
consider the current phrasing OK, but if there are strong feelings I'd 
be open to re-phrase.

> Question2: Should APR05 deadline have something like "to IESG as
> Proposed Standard(s)"?

Yup, will add that.

Thanks much!!

-Markus