This issue was not brought up in Austin. Only a name change for the
current document was an issue. As far as I can tell, including the
minutes from Austin, my split proposal is new, and is derived from my
efforts at actually doing another mapping document.
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: don at lexmark.com [SMTP:don at lexmark.com]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 12:46 PM
To: rturner at sharplabs.com
Cc: Ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)
I think this issue was decided in Austin with a name change for
the
Protocol document.
Considering the pain separating them now would be and having to
deal with
editing all
the cross references, etc. in the IETF format is just not worth
it. When
the time comes to
map IPP to another transport then Bob or whoever is editor of
that protocol
document
can make the split.
**********************************************
* Don Wright don at lexmark.com *
* Product Manager, Strategic Alliances *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 606-232-4808 (phone) 606-232-6740 (fax) *
**********************************************
To: ipp%pwg.org at interlock.lexmark.com
cc: (bcc: Don Wright)
bcc: Don Wright
Subject: IPP> IPP document set - naming convention(s)
Would anyone have any problem(s) splitting the protocol (not
model)
document into two documents?
Document 1 would be an encoding document
Document 2 would describe how to transport the encoding over
HTTP 1.1
?
Randy