attachment-0001
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi Bill,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks again for the updated "MFD
Service Operations" with clearly marked issues for discussion in the
upcoming meeting.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In many of our previous MFD meetings,
we worked hard to come to basic consensus on whether a service operation
is "REQUIRED", or "OPTIONAL". I think the document
should reflect these working group status, as a good basis for further
discussions. It's not a final draft of course, anybody can still
challenge what have agreed so far. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I recommend that you follow the convention
set in the Copy Service specification which is in WG Last Call, by "bold"
face the "REQUIRED" operations and input/output parameters to
reflect the current working group progresses. The rest are OPTIONAL.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Again, thanks for helping us making
progress,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">-Nancy</font>
<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 06:30 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"><mfd@pwg.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</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">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">MFD Service Operations</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<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 document<br>
rather than included as part of the "overall" spec is to allow
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 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 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
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 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 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 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 the<br>
document.<br>
</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>2. Please explain your intent for the highlights in
different colors. I like<br>
very much what Tom Hasting did for us in his IPP JPS2 draft. There is 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 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], 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 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 />--
<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.