having seen some of the traffic on the IPP DL on this subject over the last
week, here is my take on the subject as WG chair:
1) This IETF WG was chartered to develop a Standards Track solution for
Internet Printing. The Experimental RFCs for IPP/1.1 that are still in the
RFC Editor's queue, are not yet the answer to our charter.
2) The main reason that we have not yet achieved our charter objectives was
that the WG did not accept the earlier directions from the IESG back in May
1998.
3) We have known for a long time what the delta was between what the WG
wanted to see as a short term solution, and what the IESG wanted to see
included in the Standards Track documents.
4) Considering the points above, and the explanations from Keith Moore what
it means to have a Proposed Standard, I see no good reasons to keep on
dragging our feet much longer. We can keep on fixing bugs even after we have
a Proposed Standard, that is in the IETF process and it is the reason why we
have a 'living' IPP Implementer's Guide document.
5) I agree that we should take a look at the issues raised during the resent
IPP bake-off and quickly tackle the ones that are really of importance to
solve for the IPP/1.1 documents.
6) I am prepared to extend the Last Call period for IPP/1.1 to give us the
chance to fix any bugs that we found in the latest bake-off, but I am not
open to delaying an indeterminate period. Note that I do not want us to now
enter the "creeping functionality phase", in which we start adding new
features (because we have the time...). I would like to see suggestions for
how long we need to extend the Last Call period. My suggestion is that we
need to reach closure no later than in the April IPP meeting, and with some
follow-up documentation, close the WG Last Call no later than the end of
April.
7) The suggestion that only one company wants to have Standards Track
documents now I believe to be false. I suspect that there are still
companies out there which do not want to take on IPP in earnest until they
see the Standards Track documents. I believe that to be particularly true
for smaller companies that cannot risk to spend money on an implementation
which might change again afterwards. I would like to hear from more people
about this.
Comments welcome, but don't throw stones if you are in a glass house (old
Swedish pro-verb).
Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - 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@cp10.es.xerox.com