Keith,
Thanks for your response. I appreciate the perspecitive you add.
************************************************************
Scott A. Isaacson
Print Services Consulting Engineer
Novell Inc., 122 E 1700 S, Provo, UT 84606
V: (801) 861-7366, (800) 453-1267 x17366
F: (801) 861-4025, E: scott_isaacson at novell.com
W: http://www.novell.com
************************************************************
>>> Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu> 03/08/97 01:23am >>>
> The IETF has a somewhat different composition than the current IPP
> group. Different sets of people will naturally identify different needs.
> For those who attended the IPP BOF at the last IETF, the IETF's
> concern over inventing a new protocol instead of adapting lpr should
> not be surprising. Several IETF participants have expressed similar
> concerns to me personally. I've tried to convince those people that
> lpr is basically broken and non-extensible, but some of them are still
> concerned about compatibility. Hence the charter requirement.
I have now had a chance to go back and read the proposed charter text
and all of the email related to this, and I actually agree with the many of
the conclusions that have been drawn and proposed on how to handle
this. I was reacting to what I THOUGHT the intent of proposed charter
changes rather than what they turned out to be.
> I think it's fair to say that there is suspicion both on the
> part of some members of IPP to IETF, and of some members of IETF
> toward IPP. The best way to address this problem is to get the
> two groups working together.
I, for one, fully expect to have a good relationship between the working
group and the IESG and other IETFers. At this point, I think that it would
be better for the industry to have a real, implementable, standard rather
than just a hacked out wart based on some combination of existing
prototype products, barely acceptable to the IETF let alone
world of developers and product teams.
Scott