I was unable to participate in the last few minutes of the telephone =
conference that was held on 1/28, but I was pleased to hear that we have =
clear consensus "to proceed with our earlier plans to send the IPP Model =
& Semantics and the Protocol Specification drafts to the IESG with the =
recommendation as Proposed Standards, and our remaining three drafts as =
Informational RFCs."
I fully endorse the position that we should proceed with forwarding these =
docs to the IESG for finall call and comment as they stand.
In reviewing rfc2026 on the Internet Standards Process BCP, I get the =
impression that the goal is to be fair in balancing technical excellence =
with consensus. In this IPP WG case, there has been no compelling =
evidence that the current IPP I-Ds are lacking in technical excellence. =
However, I do feel that claims that a single voice if shouted loudly =
enough indicates a lack of consensus to be disruptive to the standards =
process.
I believe that we have strong consensus. Period. =20
I have been involved in this WG since late 1996. I am the editor and =
principal author of the Model and Semantics document. I have contributed =
to all of the other IPP I-Ds. I have seen proprosals raised, debated, =
modified, reworked, reviewed, analyzed, and finally embraced. I have seen =
a lot of give and take. I have seen WG meetings at the IETF where IETF =
attendees outside the WG have come and participated and provided feedback =
and opinion. I have seen the process work. In this latest case of =
"vehement opposition" I have not seen a lot of cooperation and give and =
take.
Scott Isaacson
************************************************************
Scott A. Isaacson
Corporate Architect
Novell Inc., M/S PRV-C-121=20
122 E 1700 S, Provo, UT 84606
voice: (801) 861-7366, (800) 453-1267 x17366
fax: (801) 861-2517
email: sisaacson at novell.com
web: http://www.novell.com
************************************************************
>>> Carl-Uno Manros <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com> 01/29 7:40 PM >>>
The PWG has just held a meeting on IPP. In that meeting which also had a
phone conference, which together covered most of the active IPP
participants, the subject of Paul Moore's and Josh Cohen's proposal to
evaluate new alternatives for the protocol specification was discussed.
Although the proposal found some support and to have some technical merit,
it was clear that a considerable majority were not convinced that the
solutions proposed would offer a better alternative to our current =
solution
and preferred to go ahead with our current drafts without further delays.
I therefore believe that we have enough consensus to proceed with our
earlier plans to send the IPP Model & Semantics and the Protocol
Specification drafts to the IESG with the recommendation as Proposed
Standards, and our remaining three drafts as Informational RFCs.
I wish to see your reconfirmation of this consensus expressed on the IPP =
DL.
I plan to send the drafts to the IESG next Friday on February 6th, 1998.
Regards,
Carl-Uno
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