Harry,
I understand. Who can contact the IPP WG chair and see if they'll pursue
the standards track for this RFC. Thanks.
Pat Fleming, Directory and Websphere Technology CEM
Phone: 507-253-7583 (T/L 553-7583) Dept 45E/Bldg 015-2 / F111
flemingp@us.ibm.com
HARRY LEWIS
08/15/2000 11:25 AM
To: Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM
cc: imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com, imcdonald@sharplabs.com
Subject: Re: IPP LDAP as Information vs Standard RFC ?? (Document link:
Pat Fleming)
I'm thoroughly frustrated by the IETF process and apparent arbitrary focus
on some parts of network infrastructure vs. others. Presumably, if it's
worth documenting and fosters interoperability, it should be on the
standards track. There are those who consider standards track a requirement
before they implement.
My experience is that industry momentum (or lack thereof) determines
acceptance in the print industry and the RFC number is a "formality"... be
it experimental, informational or standards track.
So my answer is:
1. It SHOULD be Standards Track, but this should not entail any additional
work on our parts
2. If we feel Standards Track would cause additional justification,
consternation or whatever... it's not worth it.
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
Pat Fleming
To: Harry
Lewis/Boulder/IBM@IBMUS, imcdonald@sharplabs.com,
08/14/2000 imcdonal@sdsp.mc.xerox.com
02:42 PM cc:
Subject: IPP LDAP as
Information vs Standard RFC ??
Harry and Ira,
I asked Bob and Lee for feed back on our IPP LDAP I-D being submitted as an
'information' vs 'standard' RFC. I'm neutral on this right now. What do
you two think about this? Should we just leave it as an information rfc?
Pat Fleming, Directory and Websphere Technology CEM
Phone: 507-253-7583 (T/L 553-7583) Dept 45E/Bldg 015-2 / F111
flemingp@us.ibm.com
---------------------- Forwarded by Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM on 08/14/2000
03:37 PM ---------------------------
Lee Rafalow
08/11/2000 02:14 PM
To: Robert Moore/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
From: Lee Rafalow/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Subject: Re: New INFORMATIONAL document for publishing as RFC - Internet
Print ing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
<draft-ietf-ipp-ldap -printer-schema-03.txt> (Document link: Pat
Fleming)
I agree with Bob's assessment. One other consideration is that the extra
cachet of standards-track generally means that companies will implement it
(because they've agreed to it) whereas informational means companies may or
may not, because they haven't agreed, they've just been informed.
Lee M. Rafalow
Voice: 1-919-254-4455 (8-444-4455); Fax: 1-919-254-6243 (8-444-6243)
IBM Internet Technology Management
IBM Corporation
P.O. Box 12195, BRQA/502
RTP, NC 27709 USA
Alternate email: rafalow@raleigh.ibm.com
Intranet: http://rafalow.raleigh.ibm.com/
Home email: rafalow@mindspring.com
Robert Moore
08/11/2000 01:46 PM
To: Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Lee Rafalow/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
From: Robert Moore/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Subject: Re: New INFORMATIONAL document for publishing as RFC - Internet
Print ing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
<draft-ietf-ipp-ldap -printer-schema-03.txt> (Document link: Lee
Rafalow)
Pat,
I'll offer several comments. Maybe Lee can offer some others.
An Informational RFC is much more like a standards-track RFC than it is
like an Internet-Draft. The key similarity is that all RFCs are
permanent documents, archived forever and never changed once they're
published (although they can be made obsolete by a subsequent RFC).
Full Internet Standards have standard (STD) numbers, but almost everyone
refers to them by their RFC numbers instead. And in this regard an
Informational RFC is on exactly the same footing as a standard RFC --
they both have 4-digit RFC numbers that come from the same number space,
and their numbers will forever refer to exactly those documents.
It's a cliche in IETF circles to grumble that "marketing" completely
erases the distinction between an Informational RFC and a standard (or a
standards-track RFC). When a vendor says that a product "supports RFC
2999", customers never ask (and the vendor never volunteers) whether
this is a standard / standards-track RFC or just an Informational one.
So really it wouldn't particularly hurt you if this document went the path
of an Informational RFC. That said, though, I don't agree with your
chair's assessment that this is the path it *should* follow. There aren't
too many LDAP schemas to compare it with, but there are a lot of SNMP MIBs
that have been defined in the IETF. Almost all of these have taken the
standards track, rather than being published as informational. So I would
think that your LDAP schema would be a standards-track document as well.
One question that might be relevant here is whether the document is a "work
product" of the IPP WG, rather than a document that was produced by a set
of individuals, and then presented to the WG for information. The fact
that the filename starts draft-ietf-ipp-... isn't conclusive -- either type
of document could have this form of filename. And the WG charter isn't
helpful either, since the last milestone listed there is dated August 1997!
My bottom line for you is this: you have a "right" for this document to be
a standards-track RFC, but the added benefit of this status over an
Informational RFC isn't great enough to justify spending very much time
fighting for this right.
Regards,
Bob
Bob Moore
IBM Networking Software
+1-919-254-4436
remoore@us.ibm.com
Pat Fleming
08/10/2000 09:48 PM
To: Robert Moore/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:
From: Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
Subject: New INFORMATIONAL document for publishing as RFC - Internet Print
ing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
<draft-ietf-ipp-ldap -printer-schema-03.txt>
Robert,
I needs some help/advice here. The IPP chair just sent out this note
concerning the Internet Draft we have been developing. Here he suggests
that it become an Informational RFC. In earlier discussions with you and
Lee, I remember some concerns about this becoming 'only' an informational
draft (which are subject to change) and not an RFC standard. I believe Ira
and myself were expecting this to become an internet standard. Is an
informational draft the 'first' step to becoming a standard RFC? Or do we
want to redirect the positioning of this I-D?
Pat Fleming, Directory and Websphere Technology CEM
Phone: 507-253-7583 (T/L 553-7583) Dept 45E/Bldg 015-2 / F111
flemingp@us.ibm.com
---------------------- Forwarded by Pat Fleming/Rochester/IBM on 08/10/2000
02:14 PM ---------------------------
"Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com> on 08/10/2000 01:39:46 PM
To: iesg@ietf.org
cc: Carl-Uno Manros <cmanros@cp10.es.xerox.com>, Ned Freed
<Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>, Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>, Pat
Fleming/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
Subject: New INFORMATIONAL document for publishing as RFC - Internet Print
ing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
<draft-ietf-ipp-ldap -printer-schema-03.txt>
Members of the IESG,
The IETF IPP WG has finished the work on the following document, which has
passed through the IPP WG Last Call.
The document has been also been reviewed by the LDAP Extensions WG, and is
aligned with a corresponding schema for the Service Location Protocol.
Internet Printing Protocol (IPP): LDAP Schema for Printer Services
<draft-ietf-ipp-ldap-printer-schema-03.txt>
My understanding is that this kind of document is typically published as an
INFORMATIONAL RFC.
The schema also needs to be registered with the IANA.
Regards,
Carl-Uno Manros
Chair of the IETF IPP WG
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
-------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 30 2000 - 17:53:22 EDT