>>Don's statement of "sanity" is refreshing to hear. Why are we in >such a
>rush to have a version 1.1?
>>>>We should also use this time to fully develop the IPP enhancements >that
>have been discussed.
>>>>>> Ron Bergman
>> Dataproducts Corp.
>>Because if you want the ITU to take a serious look at IPP as a >"Document
Transmission" protocol it will have to be a Draft >Standard. Informational
RFC's cannot be referenced.
>>That said .. I'm sure there a fair amount of time before those issues come
up.
If I remember correctly, at the Maui meeting we agreed that we wanted to
make changes in IPP v1.1 to support IPP2IFAX or HI-FI DOCS or whatever it's
called now. I'm in favor of moving along as soon as possible on IPP v1.1,
but it does seem premature since we haven't really decided what the HI-FI
DOCS work entails, or what it will require from IPP.
So what's the best phasing of this work, Richard? We will need IPP as a
draft standard before the ITU gets involved, but at what point in the HI-FI
DOCS work would we want to get the ITU involved?
Cheers,
Nick Webb