IPP Mail Archive: IPP> [Clarification] Should we do a PWG IP

IPP> [Clarification] Should we do a PWG IPP/1.2 standard?

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 10:45:45 EDT

  • Next message: Scott Lawrence: "IPP> polling re: Upgrade and CONNECT support"

    Hi folks,

    Some concern has been expressed about (hypothetical) republication
    of copyrighted IETF IPP material in an IEEE/ISTO PWG IPP/1.2 spec.

    Here's some clarification of the actual format of PWG IPP/1.2 that
    Pete Zehler and I are proposing.

    > We are _not_ proposing that we should republish any IETF or PWG
    > existing stds track or information IPP spec!
    >
    > (Pete and I agree here) We are simply going to publish a very short
    > document called IPP/1.2 that contains: a) list of normatively and
    > informatively referenced _existing_ IPP specs; and b) list of now
    > REQUIRED and OPTIONAL operations, objects, and attributes for IPP/1.2
    > (i.e., higher requirements than IPP/1.1 and its entirely OPTIONAL set
    > of current extensions in all those IPP specs).
    >
    > The PWG IPP/1.2 spec would _not_ infringe any IETF copyright material.
    > IANA would continue to be the permanent authority for registered IPP
    > operations, objects, and attributes (from both PWG and IETF specs).
    >
    > OK?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > - Ira McDonald
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 10:46:51 EDT