I would amend Hugo's questions... and request that the options be as
follows:
a) over email
b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
direction)
d) "Native" IPP notifications (new - augment IPP to allow multiple
responses to any operation)
e) over SNMP
f) don't mandate any
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
"Hugo Parra" <HPARRA at novell.com>
Sent by: owner-ipp at pwg.org
06/28/2000 08:15 PM
To: <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com>, <carl at manros.com>,
<pmoore at peerless.com>
cc: <ipp at pwg.org>
Subject: RE: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification
delivery method by July 7
Shouldn't the options be ...
a) over email
b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
direction)
d) over SNMP
e) don't mandate any
Otherwise those who give each entry a weight of zero, basically through
away their vote.
-Hugo
>>> "Carl-Uno Manros" <carl at manros.com> 06/28/00 07:52PM >>>
Oh no, I managed to not be completely clear after all.
The weighting is for the IETF standards texts.
What gets tested in the bake-off is the decision of the PWG, which hosts
the
bake-off event, and has nothing to do with this exercise.
Carl-Uno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ipp at pwg.org [mailto:owner-ipp at pwg.org]On Behalf Of
>pmoore at peerless.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 5:47 PM
> To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
> Cc: IETF-IPP
> Subject: Re: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery method
> by July 7
>>> If this is a vote for making things mandatory :-
>> 0 a) over email
> 0 b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> 0 c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> direction)
> 0 d) over SNMP
>> I dont think mandating is useful
>> If this is a vote for 'what specs do we need to agree and bakeoff ASAP'
>> 2 a) over email
> 0 b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> 2 c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
> direction)
> 0 d) over SNMP
>>>>> "Manros, Carl-Uno B" <cmanros at cp10.es.xerox.com> on 06/28/2000 05:17:16
PM
>> To: IETF-IPP <ipp at pwg.org>
> cc: (bcc: Paul Moore/AUCO/US)
>> Subject: IPP> ADM - Pick your favorite notification delivery
> method by July 7
>>>> All,
>> The IETF does not do voting, but we can ask people to allocate weights
to
> their favorite method. From the result I hope to get a picture of
> whether we
> have a clear "rough consensus" favorite, or if we should just avoid
trying
> to make any particular notification delivery method the "required" or
> "mandated" one.
>> So let the weightings begin!
>> Here are the rules:
>> 1) We have 4 candidate notification delivery methods, briefly
> described as:
>> a) over email
> b) over IPP (a.k.a. intelligent polling)
> c) over INDP (new IPP-like protocol, but works in the opposite
direction)
> d) over SNMP
>> 2) You have a total of maximum 4 weight points to allocate between the 4
> methods above.
>> a) You can put all your 4 points on one favorite and leave the
> other three
> with 0 each. (the 'all eggs in one basket' option)
> b) If you don't really mind which method, you can give 1 point to each
of
> the methods. (the 'chicken' option)
> c) You can allocate your 4 points somewhere between the two extreme
cases
> above. (the 'diplomatic' options)
> d) If you don't want to make ANY of the methods "required" or
"mandated",
> put a 0 for ALL four methods! (the 'don't even try it' option)
>> If you still haven't understood the rules, please read the above
> text 3 more
> times, before you make a fool of yourself....., or of me for not
> being clear
> enough ;-{
>> So please collect your wits and send your weights to the IPP DL no later
> than next Friday July 7!
>> Have fun.... and remember that if you do not participate you cannot win!
>> 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 at cp10.es.xerox.com>>>>>>