attachment-0002
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I have updated the Cloud Printing Requirements and Model specification to reflect those (few) things agreed to at last week’s conference call. See<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/wd-cloudmodel10-20130313.pdf">ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/wd-cloudmodel10-20130313.pdf</a> or<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/wd-cloudmodel10-20130313.docx">ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/wd/wd-cloudmodel10-20130313.docx</a> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We did not get to review most of the current changes at last week’s conference call, and suggested that they could be addressed on the mail list, but that does not seem to work. So I suggest that we go to a <b>two hour conference call as the IPP WG has</b>. There is little motivation to spec writers to continue when they are awaiting comments on what has been done. With a little more feedback from the working group, there should be no reason why we cannot get this spec out and proceed to the imaging services.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Note that we have been working Cloud Imaging for over two years and on this specification for over a year. Although some conceptual approaches have been developed, we are still some way from having a comprehensive specification. Even if members of the Cloud service industry were willing to adopt our standards, it is unlikely that they would wait for us to get our stuff together. Google has been cooperative in taking an alternate route and inviting us to comment on some of their specifications, but few members have taken this opportunity.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Bill Wagner<o:p></o:p></p></div><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</body></html>