How Silly!
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Individual
----------------------------------------------
"Hastings, Tom N" <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org
02/06/2001 07:38 PM
To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3 at torque.pothole.com>
cc: IETF-IPP <ipp at pwg.org>
Subject: IPP> RE: PWG> Re: No more Bake-offs?
To answer your question about whether we use Bake Off prominently:
I changed the IPP Implementer's Guide just announced today as an I-D to
use
"Interoperability Testing Events", instead of "Bake Offs". However, the
file names that has the results remains the same with Bake-Off3 in the
file
name, which I hope is not really a problem:
The issues raised from the third Interoperability Testing Event are
numbered 3.n in this document and are described in:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/Issues/Issues-raised-at-Bake-Off3.pdfftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/Issues/Issues-raised-at-Bake-Off3.docftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/Issues/Issues-raised-at-Bake-Off3.txt
Also the PWG IPP web page refers to a Bake-Off 3 document under Recent
News
and under Testing. Perhaps the web page links (Bake-Off3 Results,
Bake-Off3, and Bake-Offs) could be renamed to something like Testing Event
3
Results, Testing Event 3, and Previous Testing Events though the first one
points to files with Bake-Off in the file name (which again I hope is not
a
problem):
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/new_TES/Bake-Off-3-Summary.pdf
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:dee3 at torque.pothole.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 09:45
To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
Cc: IETF-IPP; pwg at pwg.org; Scott Bradner; IETF App-WG-Chairs
Subject: PWG> Re: No more Bake-offs?
Do we really use that term very prominently? I think these days it is
only used informally and "interoperability testing" or the like is
what our process documents refer to. Why are we worried about this if
it hasn't been a problem?
Donald
PS: I think Pillsbury's lawyers don't have a case anyway but its
probably not worth going into the details of that as they could cause
trouble.
From: "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com>
Message-ID:
<918C79AB552BD211A2BD00805F15CE85045E1344 at x-crt-es-ms1.cp10.es.xerox.com
>To: IETF-IPP <ipp at pwg.org>
Cc: pwg at pwg.org, Scott Bradner <sob at harvard.edu>,
IETF App-WG-Chairs
<wg-chairs at apps.ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:02:02 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
>FYI,
>>The Pillsbury company introduced the term Bake-Off in 1949 and has it as
a
>registered trademark. They also own the web site www.bakeoff.com
>>Their lawyers have apparently recently started attacking other groups and
>organizations that use the word for very different purposes.
>>See news article from today in the New Jersey Star-Ledger at:
>>http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/page1/ledger/121f112.html>>Any suggestions for another term that we can use in the future, or do you
>want to take on a fight with the Doughboy?
>>Carl-Uno
>>Carl-Uno Manros
>Manager, Print Services
>Xerox Architecture Center - 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>