I see *your* point. Except my vote was going to be ...
a) over email - 1
b) over IPP
c) over INDP - 1
d) over SNMP
e) don't mandate any - 2
But, if that's not an option then I'll settle for ...
a) over email - 0 (strongly recommend)
b) over IPP - 0
c) over INDP - 0 (strongly recommend)
d) over SNMP - 0
-Hugo
>>> "Carl-Uno Manros" <carl at manros.com> 06/28/00 08:28PM >>>
Hugo,
I see your point, but I don't want to change the rules again. What I intend
to do is to count the 0000-ids as a separate category; if we end up having
more people in that group than in the one that has allocated their 4 points,
we have a clear answer. Nobody's voice will go unheard...
Carl-Uno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Parra [mailto:HPARRA at novell.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 7:15 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
> methodby 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> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>>>