PWG-IPP Mail Archive: Re: ADM - IPP Priorities

Re: ADM - IPP Priorities

From: Ron Bergman (rbergma@hitachi-hkis.com)
Date: Fri Jun 02 2000 - 17:45:44 EDT

  • Next message: Wagner,William: "RE: ADM - IPP Priorities"

    Paul,

    According to Carl-Uno's original memo, more points indicates
    a higher priority. You have only 21 points to distribute, so it
    is not a priority number per-se.

        Ron

    pmoore@auco.com wrote:

    > Before this thread continues can somebody please say whether high numbers are
    > high or low priority ie - is 0 the hightes or lowest
    >
    > Ron Bergman <rbergma@hitachi-hkis.com> on 06/02/2000 02:11:56 PM
    >
    > To: pwg-ipp@pwg.org
    > cc: (bcc: Paul Moore/AUCO/US)
    >
    > Subject: Re: ADM - IPP Priorities
    >
    > Carl-Uno,
    >
    > I agree that notifications needs to remain the highest priority!
    > I would also like to add Qualdocs to your list.
    > Here is my ranking per your points system:
    >
    > 5 - Set 2 Operations
    > 4 - Set 3 Operations
    > 3 - Qualdocs
    > 3 - Print Driver Download
    > 3 - Open Source IPP Client
    > 1 - Production Printing Attributes
    > 1 - Document & Page Exceptions
    > 1 - Resource Object
    >
    > The Set 2 and Set 3 operations have been in progress for too long. We
    > need to
    > make
    > a final agreement as to their content and complete this effort!
    >
    > Qualdocs should not be a major effort. Seems that most of the work is
    > already
    > in
    > place. This could be our "killer application" and with notifications
    > almost
    > complete
    > this could be quickly formalized.
    >
    > Print Driver Download and an Open Source IPP Client will also provide a
    > powerful
    >
    > edge to IPP.
    >
    > Ron Bergman
    > Hitachi Koki Imaging Solutions
    >
    > "Manros, Carl-Uno B" wrote:
    >
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > During the last part of our IPP meeting in New York, the problem was raised
    > > that we have a number of subjects and documents that have not been
    > > progressed lately, because we have had too many things going on in parallel,
    > > and a high priority item for one company may be low priority for another.
    > >
    > > We are trying to now wrap up the discussions and documentation on IPP
    > > Notifications, but there are several competing subjects after that. It does
    > > not look too promising to get more face-to-face time on IPP during the PWG
    > > meetings, so a subsequent phone conference discussed what we can do to make
    > > some of the lower priority subjects move forward without having to involve
    > > the whole group. However, it was decided to first try to get a better
    > > picture of the priorities, so we can establish where we stand.
    > >
    > > Here is a list of "competing" IPP subjects, which I would like to get your
    > > priorities for:
    > >
    > > - Print Driver Download (needs to get done quickly or may never happen)
    > > Latest draft from Hugo Parra - May 25, 2000
    > > - Resource Object (a possible extension/generalization of Printer Download)
    > > DL discussion, no document yet
    > > - Set 2 Operations (subject from last year) Latest draft in New York IPP
    > > Package - February 3, 2000
    > > - Set 3 Operations (subject from last year) Latest draft in New York IPP
    > > Package - December 8, 1999
    > > - Document & Page Exceptions (subject from last year) Latest draft in New
    > > York IPP Package - May 8, 2000
    > > - Production Printing Attributes - Latest draft in New York IPP Package -
    > > May 9, 2000
    > > - Open Source IPP Client - Discussion in New York (see message sent out
    > > earlier today)
    > >
    > > I would like each of you to use a total of 21 points and allocate them on
    > > the 7 subjects above. Higher points mean higher priority. For the subjects
    > > for which you have put more than your average >3, I would also like you to
    > > state whether you are prepared to take on to be a subgroup leader
    > > (organizing phone conferences or separate meetings) and/or if you want to
    > > take on being an editor for the draft document(s).
    > >
    > > Let us do this initially on a per expert basis; I expect that we can then
    > > accumulate the votes and get averages per company if we still need that.
    > >
    > > Please note that this voting is not part of the IETF process, but anybody
    > > involved in the PWG activities are welcome to give their input, either they
    > > are PWG members or not.
    > >
    > > Further discussion of this subject will be held on the pwg-ipp DL, so if you
    > > are not yet a member of that DL, please subscribe now and send your input to
    > > that DL.
    > >
    > > I would like you to provide your input no later than June 13, so we can
    > > discuss the results in the IPP phone conference on June 14.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > >
    > > 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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 02 2000 - 17:40:00 EDT