I agree with Bob. At the December meeting, I was interested in going to
many of the other IETF working group meetings, but soon learned that
that was not very productive or even interesting. I am planning on the
fact that we will be chartered by then and that IPP will have a formal
working group meeting scheduled by the IETF at that time. If so, we
should go to support the fact that we are now a formal working group. If
we go to that much trouble, then we ought to have a real meeting rather
than just-a-waste-of-2-hours meeting. If there is one formal meeting
with the PMP/JMP working group and one for the IPP working group, then
we ought to just have our meetings there. As Don pointed out, we
would have to get some rooms and do this more formally than just
meeting in the hallway to mark some progress.
Scott
>>> Robert Herriot <robert.herriot at Eng.Sun.COM> 01/14/97 07:22pm >>>
Although the pwg meetings may add up to a lot of days to integrate with
IETF meetings, I do not personally find many sessions at IETF to be of
interest. If I am going to spend the time going to Memphis, I would
prefer to have a reasonable amount of time to make progress on IPP. A
two hour session at IETF isn't enough time to do much.
Do we plan to have an IPP or PWG session at IETF? If so, would the
same group attend this meeting as would attend the normal pwg
meetings?
Bob Herriot
> From harryl at VNET.IBM.COM Tue Jan 14 15:38:59 1997
> >My main concern is how much is being crammed into the allocated
time. For
> >instance, using some round numbers...
> >
> >General - .5 day
> >IPP - 1 day
> >1394 - .5 day
> >PMP - .5 or 1 day
> >JMP - .5 or 1 day
> >Sense - .5 day
> >
> >And then add in some IETF time if that is occurring.... It looks like there
> >might be some overlapping meetings at the PWG.
> >
> >Bob Pentecost
> >HP
>> Good observation, Bob. Perhaps we SHOULD think about how best to
> overlap, in general, until some projects get put to rest (hopefully
> PMP and JMP will reach that point soon).
>> Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>