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 14 (filtered medium)"><base href="x-msg://1516/"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Andale Mono";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","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.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hi Mike,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I agree that we shouldn’t keep standards around longer than they are useful but at the same time I think we need to be mindful of the responsibility of being a standards organization as well. Where the Copy Service (5108.04) was only published two years ago, it means that MFD devices that might want to claim compliance with the specification will likely be very new devices that have recently entered the market. I don’t think that deprecating the specification by publishing the SM 2.0 specification (all the good aspects of version 1.0 with potentially some corrections and/or enhanced functionality to reach version 2.0) is going to upset any vendors who have expended resources to implement compliance with the Copy Service 1.0 specification.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>On the other hand, should we ultimately decide to remove the Copy Service from the model as part of publishing SM 2.0, I would imagine that vendors who have expended effort to become compliant with a PWG specification (Copy Service 1.0) that in a short time lost its relevance might wonder whether the effort they expended to conform with a PWG specification that disappeared so quickly was warranted. By extension, this could quickly become an investigation into whether conforming to any PWG standards was warranted.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>For this reason, I think that it was useful for Pete to bring this element into the discussion for further consideration as we continue with the SM 2.0 project.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>/Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>--</span><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Paul Tykodi<br>Principal Consultant<br>TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC<br><br>Tel/Fax: 603-343-1820<br>Mobile: 603-866-0712<br>E-mail: <a href="mailto:ptykodi@tykodi.com">ptykodi@tykodi.com</a></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>WWW: </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.tykodi.com/" target="_blank"><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>http://www.tykodi.com</span></a></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Michael Sweet [mailto:msweet@apple.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 03, 2013 4:13 PM<br><b>To:</b> ptykodi@tykodi.com<br><b>Cc:</b> mfd@pwg.org; 'Manchala, Daniel'; 'Zehler, Peter'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [MFD] Meeting Minutes: IEEE/ISTO - PWG/Semantic Model Working Group, 1 July 2013<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Paul,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 2013-07-03, at 3:26 PM, Paul Tykodi <<a href="mailto:ptykodi@tykodi.com">ptykodi@tykodi.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>...</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> The "Printer Working Group" industry consortium is not an IETF working group, and the IETF does not recognize the Printer Working Group as a standards-setting body. This document is being published solely to provide</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> information to the Internet community regarding a MIB that might be deployed in the marketplace. Publication of this document as an RFC is not an endorsement of this MIB.”</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Yeah, old politics from before the PWG became part of the IEEE-ISTO...<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> I think that Pete makes a good observation in his point #1 that as an IEEE-ISTO standards body, the PWG does need to consider carefully the potential deprecation of an existing PWG standard in favor of handling the same task in a totally new way rather than a deprecation due to the publishing of a new updated version of a specification that obsoletes the previous version.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>But we also should not keep standards around longer than they are useful. We have obsoleted standards before, and if we are successful in doing SM 2.0 we will be obsoleting a LOT of specs in the SM/MFD space. Standards change.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>What we shouldn't do is make any assumptions about the validity of our positions - right now I think we have consensus that we need to define a hardcopy document object and its supporting elements and semantics. Once that is done we can update the Scan, FaxOut, EmailOut, Print, and Copy models to use it, and *then* make a decision about whether Copy is its own service or a function of Print.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>(the other aspect is work for IDS: how to define and query policies for MFDs tailored to MFD functions, and does Copy need to be separate for proper AAA?)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Andale Mono","serif";color:black'>_________________________________________________________<br>Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></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>