RE: Moving Forward

Hi Clemens,
=20
every active participant is more than welcome.
I also appreciate your positive view, maybe I got too pessimistic recentl=
y.
=20
If the group agrees that we should continue with our current milestones, =
I am happy to work with you on the OCP/SMTP draft, hoping that Alex will =
at least be available to discuss some OCP details, better as co-author.
=20
So, what are the others thinking about OCP/SMTP? Should we do this - now?
=20
Regards
Martin

	-----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Nachricht-----=20
	Von: [email protected] im Auftrag von Clemens Perz=20
	Gesendet: Do 11.08.2005 04:26=20
	An: OPES Group=20
	Cc:=20
	Betreff: Re: Moving Forward
=09
=09


	Hi,
=09
	If you are willing to consider the contribution of a complete greenhorn =
to
	this Working Group, I would like to work with Martin on the OCP/SMTP dra=
ft.
	I'm not sure if it needs to be on the Charter for that, but it should no=
t
	be forgotten in any way.
=09
	My experience is that the people who could benefit from such a standard =
do
	not know about the OPES Working Group and the potential it's work create=
s.
	While the SMTP threats grow and the search for more flexible infrastruct=
ure
	solutions becomes more hectic, it would be nice to have the phoenix read=
y
	in the fire :)
=09
	The relevance of the OCP/SMTP might be underestimated by us and the
	markets, because many people do not take their time yet to get the whole
	picture. Offering a flexible protocol solution could change that very
	quickly.
=09
	Cheers,
=09
	Clemens
=09
=09
	--On Mittwoch, 10. August 2005 20:16 -0400 Markus Hofmann <[email protected]=
om>
	wrote:
=09
	>
	> Martin,
	>
	> so what would you propose is the next step after removing OCP/SMTP fro=
m
	> the charter?
	>
	> All - everyone in agreement with Martin, or does somebody see a
	> need/interest for OCP/SMTP?
	>
	> Thanks,
	>    Markus
	>
	> Martin Stecher wrote:
	>> Hi,
	>>
	>> I am available for OPES protocol work and willing to act as a co-auth=
or
	>> for OCP profile drafts.
	>> But I am not convinced that OCP/SMTP is the next step. As there seems
	>> to be no other interest in this we should indeed have the open SMTP
	>> milestones to be removed from the charter, for now, IMO.
	>> There is no current OCP/SMTP demand by the industry today.
	>>
	>> In principle I believe that OCP has the ability to act as an universa=
l
	>> protocol agnostig callout protocol and that OCP/SMTP can and should b=
e
	>> done at some time.
	>>
	>> But with the limited resources we have in this group today we must fo=
cus
	>> on those adaptations that are of immediate need and use for someone.
	>> There we can proof that OCP is a powerful, application agnostic proto=
col
	>> with useful and needed protocol profiles.
	>> Only then we can get to first implementations that may then hopefully
	>> cut the Gordian knot we are facing today.
	>> And after that we may be asked to return to OCP/SMTP.
	>>
	>> Regards
	>> Martin
	>>
	>
=09
=09
=09