attachment-0001
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Bill,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks for pointing out the .doc version.
Sorry for my oversight.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Since we are at the discussion of the
"Service Operations", why not make sure we get all required vs.
optional discussed right when we are at there? I hate to go through the
same list over and over again. A subject does get "stale" after
we have to stare at it several times.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">If you have trouble with some of them
are required in Overall semantics, but may not be applicable to some of
the services, I think they should be so stated in the Overall spec, mark
them in Bold and Italic font to distinguish them from the rest, and also
documented in the applicable services.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I would really appreciate if we could
make good progress this way.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">-Nancy</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"William Wagner"
<wamwagner@comcast.net></b> </font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">03/30/2010 07:35 PM</font>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><Nancy.Chen@okidata.com></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><mfd@pwg.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">RE: [MFD] Re: MFD Service Operations</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Nancy,<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Thanks you for your prompt comments.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>As you may notice in my original message, I have posted
both *pdf and *.doc<br>
versions.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>I suggest the question of whether operations are to
listed a required or<br>
optional should be in the Overall document or in the specific service<br>
documents be an item of discussion. I was troubled by the position that
we<br>
state them as required in the Overall document with the understanding that<br>
they may not be applicable to a given service.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Bill Wagner<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>From: Nancy.Chen@okidata.com [mailto:Nancy.Chen@okidata.com]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:28 PM<br>
To: Nancy.Chen@okidata.com<br>
Cc: mfd@pwg.org; mfd-bounces@pwg.org; William Wagner<br>
Subject: Re: [MFD] Re: MFD Service Operations<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Bill,<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Also please provide microsoft "WORD" version
for people to annotate their<br>
comments. Not all of us have the luxury of owning a copy of writable PDF<br>
editor.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Thanks,<br>
-Nancy<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Nancy.Chen@okidata.com<br>
Sent by: mfd-bounces@pwg.org<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>03/30/2010 07:23 PM<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>To<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>"William Wagner" <wamwagner@comcast.net><br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>cc<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>mfd@pwg.org<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Subject<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>[MFD] Re: MFD Service Operations<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Hi Bill,<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Thanks again for the updated "MFD Service Operations"
with clearly marked<br>
issues for discussion in the upcoming meeting.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>In many of our previous MFD meetings, we worked hard
to come to basic<br>
consensus on whether a service operation is "REQUIRED", or "OPTIONAL".
I<br>
think the document should reflect these working group status, as a good<br>
basis for further discussions. It's not a final draft of course,
anybody<br>
can still challenge what have agreed so far.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>I recommend that you follow the convention set in
the Copy Service<br>
specification which is in WG Last Call, by "bold" face the "REQUIRED"<br>
operations and input/output parameters to reflect the current working<br>
group progresses. The rest are OPTIONAL.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Again, thanks for helping us making progress,<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>-Nancy<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>"William Wagner" <wamwagner@comcast.net><br>
03/30/2010 06:30 PM<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>To<br>
<mfd@pwg.org><br>
cc<br>
<Nancy.Chen@okidata.com><br>
Subject<br>
MFD Service Operations<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>In response to Nancy's comments , I have reposted
the Service Operations<br>
text in<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/ServiceOperations-20100330.pdf
and<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/mfd/white/ServiceOperations-20100330.doc<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>There are NO changes to the text content.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>One reason why this has been extracted as a separate
"white" paper<br>
document<br>
rather than included as part of the "overall" spec is to allow<br>
concentration<br>
on this particular and very important aspect of the MFD services. I have<br>
modified this section extensively, and have approached it as a new<br>
document<br>
because the changes have been continuing for a long period as the various<br>
services are considered and as IPP has added operations. Therefore, there<br>
is a definite possibility of errors in continuity and inter-relation.<br>
Although I appreciate the added effort necessary, I therefore also request<br>
that this section be reviewed in its entirety, not just for what the<br>
changes<br>
are.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Except for one brand new table, I have not flagged
changes. As I have<br>
indicated previously, I believe that in enough cases the general MFD<br>
operation must be considered differently from the IPP precursor operation<br>
because of the Print specific nature of the IPP Precursor. I believe that<br>
the MFD document should be able to stand on its own in this area.<br>
Considering the general nature of the MFD Overall document, it is not<br>
obvious how detailed the operation description can or needs to be, and<br>
that<br>
is a subject for discussion.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>In some cases where I am unsure of the information
I have been given, I<br>
have<br>
put in remarks. I have formatted the PDF with balloon remarks so that the<br>
remarks are visible ( with apologies to those who can't abide balloons).<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Red highlights are mainly markers for me noting that
cross references are<br>
bad as a result of extracting this from the larger document.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Other highlights have been removed.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>I appreciate constructive comments and anticipate
that this section will<br>
be<br>
reviewed with problems resolved at the 6 April face-to-face meeting.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Thanks,<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Bill Wagner<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>From: Nancy.Chen@okidata.com [mailto:Nancy.Chen@okidata.com]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:24 AM<br>
To: William Wagner<br>
Cc: mfd@pwg.org; mfd-bounces@pwg.org<br>
Subject: Re: [MFD] Today's MWD conference call<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Bill,<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Thanks for your document update. I think many people
are like me are<br>
scratching their heads guessing and trying to understand the meaning of<br>
various color markings in your document. Would you please do the<br>
followings<br>
so that WG members can easily review and provide comments for your latest<br>
update to "Service Operations"?<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>1. Please provide a "WORD" version so that
we can make comments right in<br>
the<br>
document.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>2. Please explain your intent for the highlights in
different colors. I<br>
like<br>
very much what Tom Hasting did for us in his IPP JPS2 draft. There is<br>
clear<br>
explanation of the different color highlights at the beginning of the<br>
document before we proceed to read. Could you follow what Tom is doing
for<br>
IPP Working Group, so that we can provide very good review for your<br>
document<br>
without trying to guess what kind of comments you are expecting at those<br>
markings. Perhaps following Tom's color code would be even better, because<br>
then we don't have to remember different color codes for "consensus",<br>
"issue", "question", "new changes", etc.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>3. Please provide the text for your notes that are
labeled [W1], [W2],<br>
etc.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>Thank you for helping us out,<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>-Nancy<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
----<br>
Nancy Chen<br>
Principal Engineer<br>
Solutions and Technology<br>
Oki Data<br>
2000 Bishops Gate Blvd.<br>
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054<br>
Phone: (856)222-7006<br>
Email: Nancy.Chen@okidata.com<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>"William Wagner" <wamwagner@comcast.net><br>
Sent by: mfd-bounces@pwg.org<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>03/25/2010 12:07 PM<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>To<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2><mfd@pwg.org><br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>cc<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Subject<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>[MFD] Today's MWD conference call<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>I noticed that a table was missing in the "operations"
section, so I added<br>
it in the attached. No other significant changes. I am looking forward
to<br>
a<br>
constructive conversation this afternoon.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Thanks,<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Bill Wagner<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>--<br>
This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>
believed to be clean.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>_______________________________________________<br>
mfd mailing list<br>
mfd@pwg.org<br>
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>--<br>
This message has been scanned for viruses and<br>
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is<br>
believed to be clean.<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>- C.htm<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
mfd mailing list<br>
mfd@pwg.org<br>
https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/mfd<br>
</font></tt>
<br>
<br><img src=cid:_1_06051F18075C67E8000747CF852576F7>
<br><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.