Re: Moving Forward

Martin,

I think OCP/SMTP is the next logical direction.

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com





----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Stecher" <[email protected]>
To: "Clemens Perz" <[email protected]>; "OPES Group"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:48 PM
Subject: RE: Moving Forward



Hi Clemens,

every active participant is more than welcome.
I also appreciate your positive view, maybe I got too pessimistic recentl=
y.

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.

So, what are the others thinking about OCP/SMTP? Should we do this - now?

Regards
Martin

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




 Hi,

 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.

 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 :)

 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.

 Cheers,

 Clemens


 --On Mittwoch, 10. August 2005 20:16 -0400 Markus Hofmann <[email protected]=
om>
 wrote:

 >
 > 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
 >>
 >