Hi Don Wright, Tuesday (16 March 1999)
There's a certain flexibility with the truth in your reply to Carl-Uno
(excerpted below). That remark about one company that Carl-Uno was
upset about WAS in your (Don's) note last Thursday (March 11 1999),
also excerpted below.
Name calling's not going to help here folks. And let's remember that
the IPP WG is chartered by the IETF and NOT just by the PWG. We waste
too much time complaining about IESG/IETF rules - they are what they are
- and compliance is the price of a 'standards track' IETF RFC.
Cheers,
- Ira McDonald (outside consultant at Xerox)
High North Inc
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: don at lexmark.com> To: cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com> Cc: ipp at pwg.org> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:08:12 -0500
> Subject: Re: IPP> ADM - Last Call for IPP/1.1 documents
>> Carl-Uno Manros said:
>> >7) The suggestion that only one company wants to have Standards Track
> >documents now I believe to be false.
>> What I really said was:
>> >I know some companies have a misguided belief that everything must be
> standards
> >track before they implement it; however, that is clearly not a concern
> of this group
> >or of the IETF in general.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: don at lexmark.com> To: rshockey at ix.netcom.com> Cc: nwebb at auco.com, ipp at pwg.org> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 21:10:54 -0500
> Subject: Re: IPP> V1.1 Last Call
>> Review and a little operational experience are all I am suggesting. One and
> only one company in the IPP group has expressed ANY reservation about
> implementing an "Experimental" or "Informational" IPP specification.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------