IPP Mail Archive: IPP> FW:[Erik G's answer about SLP templa

IPP> FW:[Erik G's answer about SLP templates as RFCs]

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2000 - 12:37:14 EST

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "IPP> PPE - Updated Production Printing Attributes - Set1 down-loaded f or 2/16 telecon"

    -----Original Message-----
    From: McDonald, Ira
    Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 9:35 AM
    To: 'Erik Guttman'; McDonald, Ira
    Subject: RE: HELP - Did you get SLP 'printer:' template??

    Hi Erik,

    Thanks - excellent answers. Since LDAPEXT WG is (apparently)
    generally publishing new LDAP schemas (like Ryan Moats work
    on the DMTF CIM to LDAP schemas), when we get done translating
    the SLP 'printer:' service template to an equivalent LDAP
    schema, we think we need to put it on the Informational RFC
    track.

    I understand just what you mean about how hard it is to get
    an RFC published. IPP/1.1 (standards track update to old
    experimental IPP/1.0) has been waiting around with the
    IETF Apps ADs since June 1999 with no forward motion.
    At this rate, we'll finish IPP/1.2 under the newly
    chartered IPPEXT WG before IPP/1.1 gets published.

    Again, thanks for your thorough answers.

    Cheers,
    - Ira McDonald

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Erik Guttman [mailto:Erik.Guttman@germany.sun.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 12:29 AM
    To: McDonald, Ira
    Cc: 'Erik Guttman'
    Subject: RE: HELP - Did you get SLP 'printer:' template??

    > Hi Erik,
    >
    > Thanks very much for your instant reply (and your previous
    > instant doing the right thing).
    >
    > New LDAP schemas, DHCP options, and URL schemes are being
    > published as Informational RFCs.
    >
    > Should we be publishing SLP templates as Informational RFCs?
    >
    > Best Regards,
    > - Ira McDonald
    >

    Ira,

    You might want to publish it as an informational RFC, but we
    don't encourage that. The whole idea of the service template
    registry was to make it *much* easier to publish them than to
    publish an RFC. Once IANA gets off its posterior, I will be
    able to just review a template for grammatical adherence to
    RFC 2609 and do a little reformatting. I could theoretically
    have 1-2 week turn around on templates.

    Another thing is that RFCs are hard to revise. I know you
    could always publish a new version of an old document, but in
    practice IETF documents are hardly ever updated. I know how
    hard a 'version 2' exercise can be from SLPv2. Templates should
    be very easy to update.

    The one thing which is kind of a drag is that internet drafts
    have all sorts of information which don't easily fit into a
    template. So what I do is reformat the draft (without the
    draft header and page breaks) into the template as comments.
    This captures all technical content but is somehow not as
    satisfying as a RFC.

    Please note that once a document is registered with IANA it
    will not be removed. Thus, if there are new revisions of
    the service template

     printer.1.0.en
     printer.1.1.en
     printer.1.2.en
     printer.2.0.en

    etcetra, they'd all still be on-line. Thus, one could cite
    the old template (or use it) without worrying that it would
    be subsequently modified.

    Erik



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 16 2000 - 09:54:18 EST