Hi,
Normally they just assign an STD number and update std-index.txt (for the
RFC set)
and rfc-index.txt (for Internet Standard status). Only when any *future*
update of the
RFCs happens would be any cover page change.
RFCs never state more than just "Standards Track" on their cover page and
usually
don't mention their own STD number (because an STD could become historic or
deprecated via the underlying RFC status - although I think it's only
happened once).
I expect to see IPP/1.1 update in the RFC Index web page w/in a few weeks.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusichttp://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Jan-April: 579 Park Place Saline, MI 48176 734-944-0094
May-Dec: PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
> Smith,
>> I'm not sure about the timing - a lot depends on the RFC editor's load and
> any editorial changes that we want to make. Ideally I'd like to just have
> them assign STD numbers and change the status on the cover page (minimal
> change) to speed this along... :)
>>> On Jun 26, 2018, at 12:02 AM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & Standards
> Architec) <smith.kennedy at hp.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the update, Mike! Given this status change for RFC 8011 (and
> corresponding change for RFC 8010), when do we expect them to complete the
> move to Internet Standard?
>> Smith
>> /**
> Smith Kennedy
> Wireless & Standards Architect - IPG-PPS
> Standards - IEEE ISTO PWG / Bluetooth SIG / Wi-Fi Alliance / NFC Forum
> / USB-IF
> Chair, IEEE ISTO Printer Working Group
> HP Inc.
> */
>>>> On Jun 25, 2018, at 5:23 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet at apple.com> wrote:
>> *Internet Standard*
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> *From: *The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
> *Subject: **Protocol Action: Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model and
> Semantics to Internet Standard*
> *Date: *June 25, 2018 at 5:15:02 PM EDT
> *To: *IETF-Announce <ietf-announce at ietf.org>
> *Cc: *The IESG <iesg at ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba at computer.org>,
>draft-sweet-rfc2911bis at ietf.org, draft-sweet-rfc2910bis at ietf.org,
>barryleiba at computer.org, rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org> *Resent-From: *alias-bounces at ietf.org> *Resent-To: *msweet at apple.com, blueroofmusic at gmail.com>> The IESG has approved changing the status of the following document:
> - Internet Printing Protocol/1.1: Model and Semantics
> (rfc8011) to Internet Standard
>> This protocol action is documented at:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-change-ipp-> to-internet-standard/
>> A URL of the affected document is:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8011/>> Status Change Details:
>> As specified in RFC 6410:
>> (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
> with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.
>> - Over 98% of all digital network printers shipped in the last
> decade support IPP/1.1 (originally defined in RFC 2910/2911,
> September 2000).
>> (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
> new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.
>> - There are currently no errata against RFC 8010/8011.
>> (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
> increase implementation complexity.
>> - There are no unused features in RFC 8010/8011.
>> - The Purge-Jobs operation (from RFC 2911) is DEPRECATED in
> RFC 8011 (page 73) with "SHOULD NOT support" because it
> destroys Printer accounting implementation. This operation
> has never been widely implemented in digital network printers.
>> - The Restart-Job operation (from RFC 2911) is DEPRECATED in
> RFC 8011 (page 89) with "SHOULD NOT support" because it
> destroys Printer accounting implementation. This operation
> has never been widely implemented in digital network printers.
>> (4) If the technology required to implement the specification
> requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
> set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
> separate and successful uses of the licensing process.
>> - There is no patented or otherwise controlled technology that
> is required to implement IPP/1.1 per RFC 8010/8011.
>> Personnel
>> Alexey Melnikov is the responsible Area Director.
>>>>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>>> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer
>>> _______________________________________________
> ipp mailing list
>ipp at pwg.org>https://www.pwg.org/mailman/listinfo/ipp>>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20180626/cb9291a4/attachment.html>