attachment-0001

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>Tom,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It's not standard IETF practice to publish WG mailing list info in an RFC.  Instead, it's part of the WG charter.  The RFC Editor will typically remove it if present.  They do that because mailing lists can come and go, but RFCs are supposed to remain unchanging.</DIV> <DIV>-Scott- </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>-----Original Message----- From: Hastings, Tom N [mailto:hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 3:24 PM To: Robert Herriot Cc: ipp@pwg.org Subject: RE: IPP> FW: Diff files for IPP> Notification Documents </DIV> <DIV>Bob,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I glanced through the changes and they look good.  Thanks for taking the time, especially pro bono.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One question though:  The language of how to join the IPP DL was deleted:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> IPP Web Page:  http://www.pwg.org/ipp/<o:p></o:p> IPP Mailing List:  ipp@pwg.org<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> To subscribe to the ipp mailing list, send the following email:<o:p></o:p> 1) send it to majordomo@pwg.org<o:p></o:p> 2) leave the subject line blank<o:p></o:p> 3) put the following two lines in the message body:<o:p></o:p> subscribe ipp<o:p></o:p> end<o:p></o:p>  <o:p></o:p> Implementers of this specification document are encouraged to join the IPP Mailing List in order to participate in any discussions of clarification issues and review of registration proposals for additional attributes and values.  In order to reduce spam the mailing list rejects mail from non-subscribers, so you must subscribe to the mailing list in order to send a question or comment to the mailing list.<o:p></o:p></DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left> </DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>Was this deletion a request of the AD or RFC Editor?  It seems useful to retain.  The IPP DL will remain long after the IETF IPP WG is (finally) dissolved.  Its the same text that we have had in all IPP RFCs, including RFC 2911.</DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left> </DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>Tom</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left> -----Original Message----- From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org]On Behalf Of Robert Herriot Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 01:27 To: McDonald, Ira; pwg-announce@pwg.org Cc: ipp@pwg.org Subject: Re: PWG-ANNOUNCE> FW: Diff files for IPP> Notification Documents </DIV>I'm sorry that my reply is on pwg-announce. However, I need to respond to the Ira's email that he sent via pwg-announce. I hope that the PWG members are willing to accept the notification documents in their current form and will not request any changes or enhancements (small typos and errors excepted).  In their current form, they are likely to be published as RFCs soon because IETF reviewers have made comments about the documents and I have made corrections that address IETF reviewers' suggestions.  If I make changes beyond those requested by the IETF reviewers, there are two major problems. First, I don't have time to make major changes and no one else does either.  I have offered to do only a small amount of pro-bono work.  Second, the IETF review process would have to start all over again, and the reviewers have made it clear that they don't want to review the documents again. Unless these documents progress in essentially their current form,  they run a very high risk of never being published by the IETF.  I believe that it is best for the PWG to ensure that the IETF publish these 3 documents, and that means that they must be published in their current form. If PWG wants to make extensions to these documents, such extensions should be published in new IEEE-ISTO documents via some new process that is a successor to the process that produced these documents.  Bob Herriot At Tuesday 6/22/2004 07:18 PM, McDonald, Ira wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">Hi, Bob Herriot has just finished doing minimal required changes to the three IPP Notification documents (requirements, base, and IPPGET delivery method) to respond to the pending IETF reviewer comments. If you don't like these semantics, this is your LAST chance to change them for IPP, before they move onto the IETF 'standards track'.  Note that WIMS currently supports leases (for example) via different attributes. Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434 email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com   -----Original Message----- From: owner-ipp@pwg.org [<A href="mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org" eudora="autourl">mailto:owner-ipp@pwg.org</A>]On Behalf Of Robert Herriot Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:22 PM To: ipp@pwg.org Subject: Diff files for IPP> Documents I have uploaded .doc and .pdf files. Each file is the diff of the current Word file that is the source for the latest IETF draft against the Word file that was the source of the preceding IETF draft. ipp-notification-requirements-040621-rev.pdf ipp-notify-get-040621-rev.pdf ipp-not-spec-040621-rev.pdf and similar for .doc files. They are in the usual pwg/ipp/new_NOT directory. .. Bob Herriot </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>