Re: Latest Charter Proposal

Alex Rousskov wrote:

> 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.

"Adaptation" alone is not sufficient either. Your main concern seems 
to be the term "SMTP messages", since it leaves out SMTP commands etc. 
So I'll put "...support OPES services operating on SMTP..." and remove 
the "messages". This should include the commands etc.

>>>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.

So let's not use the term 'adaptation' then. I'll put in "Initial 
document on OCP/SMTP profile for MTAs, including mechanisms for 
tracing and bypass" for now.

-Markus