Re: Latest Charter Proposal

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:

> > 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"?

The reason for correction is not the word "adaptation" but that the
original wording limits us to operating on SMTP messages rather than
SMTP messages, commands, states, etc. Martin's examples illustrate why
operating on MIME messages alone is not sufficient.

> > 	"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.

It's not the word adaptation that I am after. It is including tracing
and bypass. The current wording inlcudes only OCP, and not OPES
Communications stuff.

Alex.