Re: Status Update

jfcm wrote:
> Sorry for this. (a) but better to ask: where can one find the most 
> appropriate definition of sieve? 

http://ietf.org/html.charters/sieve-charter.html for the sieve WG, but 
it doesn't have a link to the latest sieve definition.

> (b) should we not first stabilize the 
> list of applications?

We'll do that in parallel, Martin and Abbie are getting started and 
will have something to share soon.

> Also, I know that we are not supposed to discuss architecture, but I see 
> an increasing documented debate over NATs and all the functions actually 
> located at "NATs." - in my wording I name them "corebox" when they are 
> the actual core of the users vision of the networks. This seems one of 
> the natural location for OPES and additional services. So, without 
> discussing architecture, I suggest that we adopt the most open mind 
> toward applications/protocol and we enlarge to 
> _mail/structured_signals_, not only on SMTP?

The charter is claer - it's SMTP. This does *not* prevent us from 
keeping the larger picture in mind when designing solutions (jus as we 
did with the HTTP work), but the deliverables ask for SMTP only and 
that's our focus.

-Markus