Does anybody want to document our experience with using HTTP as transport?
From: Chris Newman [mailto:Chris.Newman at INNOSOFT.COM]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 6:06 PM
To: ietf-applcore at imc.org
Subject: What's up with APPLCORE?
For those who missed the BOF and/or the lunch meeting afterwards, here's
my summary of where APPLCORE is:
The BOF showed a lot of interest in the problem and significant interest
in the background/history document.
The BOF showed that there were several potentially incompatible directions
for later work -- a single core protocol for many uses, a set of core
protocols for different uses, a set of building blocks for protocols, or
just guidelines for reuse of existing protocols. There was no clear
concensus on a direction to go after the background/history document.
So what's happening now, is that a group of interested parties is working
on a background/history document. After that's done, we should be able to
get a narrow proposal on where to go next.
So to get started, I'd like people to either post to this list, or write a
short personal Internet draft
(e.g., draft-<lastname>-applcore-<protocols>-00.txt) on field experience
with the "core" of deployed IETF application protocols.
What do you think is the "core" of a deployed IETF application protocol
you've worked with?
For example: IMHO, the core of IMAP RFC 2060 is sections 2-2.2.2, 3-4,
5.3-5.5, 6-6.2.2, 7-7.2.1, 7.5 -- everything in the protocol
which is not related to mail access, but rather
command/response encoding, extensibility and connection
Step through the features of that "core", noting facilities which were
particularly successful or problematic in practice.
At this point, I don't see a problem with these being opinionated as some
opinions may in fact reflect rough concensus points. Eric Brenner has
agreed to be primary document editor of the background/history document
(as outlined in the minutes posted earlier). It will be his job to
collect these together into something cohesive and with assistance from
this list, filter objective or rough concensus points from opinion.