All,
It is not only the PWG5105.1-2004 (PWG Semantic Model) that references
draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2. PWG5100.5-2003 (IPP Document Object) also contains
normative references. PSI relies indirectly through these two approved
specifications on draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2.
We completed and approved draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2 back in 2001. The work to
finally get it through the IETF is minimal. While we have the IETF's
attention lets finish this work off.
Pete
Peter Zehler
XEROX
Xerox Innovation Group
Email: PZehler at crt.xerox.com
Voice: (585) 265-8755
FAX: (585) 422-7961
US Mail: Peter Zehler
Xerox Corp.
800 Phillips Rd.
M/S 128-25E
Webster NY, 14580-9701
-----Original Message-----
From: carl at manros.com [mailto:carl at manros.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9:52 PM
To: Hastings, Tom N; Ipp at Pwg. Org; Zehler, Peter
Cc: Scott Hollenbeck; sm at pwg.org
Subject: RE: IPP> Killing off draft-ietf-ipp-ops-set2 ?
Hi all,
Well things seem to be changing by the day on this subject.
It is now clear that at least the Xerox folks would like to see the document
finalized and the main IPP editor Tom Hastings has now stated to me and the
Area Director that he is prepared to have the revised version ready for Area
Director approval by the deadline on July 19. (I think Tom volonteered in
order not to have his draft scr**ed up by an editing amateur like myself).
I just want to remind you all that formally the IPP WG agreed on this
document some eons ago, and we can now get it approved quickly by just
responding to the security comments that our previous Area Director gave
back on the current draft. Following the strict rules of the IETF, the draft
is really in the hands of the Area Director at this stage and doesn't
necessarily need further approval from the IPP WG, but I am still prepared
to hear further comments from you all.
I am now leaning towards getting the document published, but would hope to
see some other people support that before the last word is said and done.
Does Peter's comment about the relationship between this document and the
PWG Semantic Model, which is referenced by several other (non-IETF)
standards, carry enough weigth to go ahead with the publishing?
In summary, we have now made the commitment that the document CAN be edited
and sent back to the Area Director within the given cut-off date, the only
remaining question is whether we actually WANT to have it published.
Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
700 Carnegie Street #3724
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Tel +1-702-617-9414
Fax +1-702-617-9417
Mob +1-702-525-0727
Email carl at manros.com
Web www.manros.com
<snip\>