Roger,
the notion that the security document be an informational one and the
simultanous requirement to have security in all documents that go for the
standards track do not mix well. As there is a special section required
for security considerations in the standards track documents, my assumption
was that we could move most of the text in bulk, mainly deciding what goes
where between the Model and Protocol documents. We might consider moving
some of the background security stuff into the Requirements document, which
also needs some updating before we are done.
Carl-Uno
At 11:26 AM 9/2/97 PDT, Roger K Debry wrote:
>Carl-Uno,
>>Sorry that I missed the point of the Munich discussion. I had thought at our
>last IPP meeting we discussed perhaps keeping the security document as an
>Informational RFC. If we don't do this, we end up copying many pages to the
>model document, or losing a lot of the background on security considerations.
>>I'm willing to go either way, but want to be sure we all agree on moving
>significant
>content from the security document to the model document. Then I think we
have
>to
>settle on moving sections over in bulk, or cutting it up and dispersing it
>throughout
>the model document in various sections where it applies.
>>Roger K deBry
>Senior Technical Staff Member
>Architecture and Technology
>IBM Printing Systems
>email: rdebry at us.ibm.com>phone: 1-303-924-4080
>>Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros at cp10.es.xerox.com